Talk:Marie of Edinburgh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Romania, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Romanian related topics. For more information, or if you would like to participate, visit the project page.

Contents 1 moving 2 surnames in children!!!! 3 Marriage between first cousins... 4 Bahai?? 5 Poor balance 6 Paternity of Children 7 Medal Image 8 Category 9 Bahai

[edit] moving

It was requested that Princess Marie of Edinburgh be moved to Marie of Edinburgh. Per Wiki naming conventions of former queens consort, this should be the title's name.Mowens35 19:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The word "princess" should be soonest taken away from the name of the article. Such are utterly impractical and ridiculous. It is quite clear that such are put as articles by some royal-romantics who should not be allowed to decide anything here, since they would fill the place with royalist litter... 62.78.104.14 16:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• complete nonsense. She was a Princess, so why not name it that way? Masako, Crown Princess of Japan is also not listed as Masako of Japan. voting against move Antares911 16:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The difference is "Crown Princess" is not a title, its a position. Masako would be listed as Princess Masako, Crown Princess of Japan under the system currently used on this page. -- Tomhab 18:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Antares, with all due respect, I have read your edits and your suggestions here in Wikipedia, and my conclusion is that very much you have uttered is complete nonsense. Of course very few take you any longer seriously. As your complete nonsensicality comes from your apparent sycophancy, it is really expected that you want to preserve all that royal litter in everywhere. Is your next move to have HRH Princess Marie of Edinburgh.

Re Masako, she should be rather Masako, Crown Princess of Japan 217.140.193.123 20:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support the requested move. The naming convention regarding this question is clear and accepted, and only some lone (loony?) debater attempted to change it some two months ago, being practically shouted down by more experienced editors. Queen consorts do NOT have the "princess" title in their headings, and so this one will also not have it. Arrigo 09:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I can see both sides of the story here, but I think some of the above posts are very venemous and bitchy and too many personal points of view are taking precedence over a balanced compromise - eg someone shouldnt be making personal comments to another user about their other postings, thats quite irrelevant. I know there are a lot of royalists here but there are also a lot of ANTI-royalists here too, and I don't favour either of them, I think we should strive to be historically correct. I have a Macmillan encyclopedia and that lists princes and princesses as such with the word "prince/ess" in the heading. It should be noted that-

• Queens consort have different naming conventions to princes and princesses as they acquired their rank by marriage not by birth, and they lack ordinals to identify them, but that doesnt change the fact they were queens. Look at present princes and princesses too - Princess Beatrice is not referred to as "Beatrice of York".
• HRH shouldnt be used for dead people, except to point out historically what they were addressed as
• Marie was a princess - it's a fact, so even if this isn't in the heading, it should definitely be in the opening paragraph. Putting the word princess in the title would make it easier certainly for researchers to identify her as a grandchild of Victoria, and also that she was a member of the Royal Family. And also all other prince/sses are referred to as such historically and in the present.

No Royalist or Anti-Royalist views should be put here. This is an encyclopedia, not a bitching forum.

My own vote is against the recent move, because historically it makes more sense to refer to her as what she was - a princess. Like it or not, it's an historical fact. However, I'm open to both sides of the argument.jayboy2005 29 Aug 2005

Sheesh. she was historically a Queen. Queens are not lowered to princesses after their deaths, they remain queens. Arrigo 01:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

No, queens arent reverted to princesses after their deaths, but they are referred to by their maiden status. That's Done Here, you may argue, but I think you'll find that queen consorts when describing where they were FROM (e.g. Alexandra of Denmark, May of Teck, Katharine of Aragon) have their territorial designation as the sovereign state NOT as individual cities as is done here. And also all of Marie's cousins here on wikipedia (Beatrice of Edinburgh, Alistair of Connaught etc etc the list goes on) have the title princess, so it appears this is the only anomoly. (jayboy2005 02 Sep 2005

I agree with the move. Marie's title after her marriage and her husband's accession to the throne supersede her title as princess of Romania. As a former Queen she should be known by her maiden title but with the style of a Queen. Therefore I am in favour of a move to Marie of Edinburgh. Also I believe it is pointless to compare her to princesses and crown princesses. As crown princess Marie would have been styled Marie, Crown Princess of Romania. Maybe a compromise would be to have a section on styles and titles from birth under the proposed title.

You're right on what you suggested but the title is wrong. Queens consort are identified by the kingdom or state from which they came - Katharine of ARAGON (kingdom), Alexandra of HESSE (sovereign duchy), Henrietta Maria of FRANCE (kingdom) etc, i.e. the territorial designation was the principal territory over which their family reigned. Edinburgh was indeed reigned over by the British monarch but under the UNITED KINGOM. So, it's probably best to call her PRINCESS MARIE OF EDINBURGH (as are all her cousins) or MARIE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. After all, Edinburgh isn't a sovereign duchy, just a titular one.--Jayboy2005 16:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I see where you’re coming from, but not all Queen Consorts are known by sovereign titles. Mary of Teck was a princess in the Kingdom of Württemberg which was a courtesy title similar to that of princess of Edinburgh in the UK. There are other exceptions also such as Catherine and Marie De Medici who were known by their surname not "of Florence". Does anyone know how Marie was known during her lifetime in Romania? This might prove useful to know. All this raises an interesting point regarding current and future Queen Consorts who are not aristocratic or from sovereign families. How will they be known in future? In Spain I assume Sophia will be know as Sophia of Greece in future, but how will her daughter in law be known? Anyway I am still in favour of the move. --62.6.139.11 10:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It would be useful to know what she was referred to as Queen - I'm thinking it wouldn't be Edinburgh as it was a new dukedom - but then, so was Teck! I agree it's difficult to know how to title queen consorts - in fact any prince or princess here is difficult to determine, they seem to be listed differently here. I've noticed it's often foreign (i.e. foreign to Britain) consorts that are known as simply "Mary of Teck" etc, whereas for our native prince/sses we seem to be giving them a bit more royal status. If we change Marie shouldn't we also change all of her Edinburgh, Albany etc cousins?

By the way, I appreciate this being a rational conversation and not the unnecessary and childish bitching this conv started with! I think maybe Marie of Edinburgh WOULD be better but definitely refer to her as a princess in the opening paragraph, and also to alter her cousins etc so they appear the same way.

How about Marie of Edinburgh, Queen of Romania as a title? How do people feel about that? I agree that the maiden title needs to be referred to but I also feel it is inappropriate to add princess as this title was superseded by her title of queen. Using previous examples, other Queen Consorts are not referred with their maiden princely or ducal titles, just the territorial designation. Alexandra of Denmark is not Princess Alexandra of Denmark and Anne of Cleves is not known as Duchess Anne of Cleves. Any feedback would be welcomed.--62.6.139.11 13:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that would be better - it would follow precedent of "Victoria, Princess Royal & Empress Friedrich".

I just noticed the title of this article, and it bothers me. Victoria, Princess Royal and Empress Frederick is titled like that to disambiguate it from other Princess Victoria's (and there have been a few). This does not conform to the naming conventions. Can you imagine if we did this to all the queen consorts, Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg would become Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg, Queen of Spain; Mary of Teck would become Mary of Teck, Queen of the United Kingdom. It would be a mess. I think this should be moved back to Marie of Edinburgh, to keep her in line with her cousins (who also became queens) and with the naming conventions. Any ideas/comments?Prsgoddess187 11:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, neither of those served an important political function in their roles as queens consort in their adopted countries. Marie functioned as a diplomat and played a significant role in Romanian politics (some would say that she ultimately played more of a role than her husband, the king). So I think this may be a case for an exception. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just moved the article back to Marie of Edinburgh as it made me cringe when I saw the title. I agree with Prs' point that others would need to add 'Queen of Nonsuch' at the end to fall in line with other pages and the Empress Frederick is just a disambiguation. Although she married the Crown Prince a few months before her father succeeded as Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, would Marie then become Marie of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha when he did succeed? Can anyone verify? Craigy (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that if she was unmarried, she would have been "Princess Marie of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and of Edinburgh". But since she became Crown Princess of Romania before that, her per-married title was Princess Marie of Edinburgh. It is the same fight with Maud of the United Kingdom, she had married Prince Carl of Denmark prior to her father becoming King, so her pre-married title should be Maud of Wales.Prsgoddess187 19:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this title. I had suggested Marie of Edinburgh, Queen of Romania as a compromise, but I agree Marie of Edinburgh is the correct title. --Mpokane 15:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

i think that a person should be put here under the name or in the quality which made him/her most famous. you have an article on marilyn monroe, not norma jean baker, etc. marie was best known as queen of romania, this title should at least be mentioned in the article title. ilya 20:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why in the blazes would I type or even know to type "Marie of Edinburgh" into the search if I am looking for info about Marie of Rumania? How was I even to know that when "Marie of Edinburgh" was returned, it was nothing more than a non-match? I finally found the article on Marie of Rumania in Wikipedia by going through GOOGLE. Wikipedia's naming conventions for royalty are absurd.

   Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
   A medley of extemporanea;
   And love is a thing that can never go wrong,
   And I am Marie of Edinburgh.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.234.32.85 (talk • contribs) 7 August 2006.

[edit] surnames in children!!!!

There is no sense in putting "Hohenzollern" everywhere to litter this page. Her children were "of Romania", and any such does not need repetition. 62.78.104.14 16:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the children were born hohenzollern. they became 'of romania' in the first world war when king ferdinand turned against germany and was declared a traitor by kaiser william and by his own family. ilya 08:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage between first cousins...

I have removed the blurb about the Duchess of Edinburgh disapproving of marriage between first cousins. She brought her children up to be "good little Germans" and didn't approve of marriage to George of Wales because she deeply disliked her husband's family. It makes no sense to say she was against marriages between first cousins; Marie's sister Victoria Melita married her first cousin, a match that their mother encouraged because he was German.

true, the problem was not the blood relationship between the two. i don't think marie of coburg encouraged the marriage of victoria with ernst, i think she was indifferent to it, and the fact that queen victoria insisted on it as a compensation for the missy marriage was what made it happen. the marriage was queen victoria's doing, not marie's.

[edit] Bahai??

The romour that HRH converted to Bahai is wishfull thinking on behalf of Bahai believers. She was buried in the Orthodox chapel which would not have been possible if she was in fact a Christian apostate. Do correct it! -- unsigned by 80.60.113.240

She was a Baha'i, and so was her daughter. There is recorded evidence of this, since she declared it publicly and wrote numerous letters to Shoghi Effendi recording it. This is not debatable. Cuñado - Talk 23:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are some excerpts from the Toronto Daily Star on May 4, 1926 during Queen Marie's visit to that city. The article clearly shows that she was a Baha'i.

Indeed a great light came to me with the message of Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá. It came as all great messages come at an hour of dire grief and inner conflict and distress, so the seed sank deeply.'

My youngest daughter finds also great strength and comfort in the teachings of the beloved masters.

We pass on the message from month to month and all those we give it to see a light suddenly lighting before them and much that was obscure and perplexing becomes simple, luminous and full of hope as never before.

That my open letter was balm to those suffering for the cause is indeed a great happiness to me, and I take it as a sign that God accepted my humble tribute.

The occasion given me to be able to express myself publicly, was also His Work -- for indeed it was a chain of circumstances of which each link led me unwittingly one step further, till suddenly all was clear before my eyes and I understood why it had been.

Thus does He lead us finally to our ultimate destiny.

Some of those of my caste wonder at and disapprove my courage to step forward pronouncing words not habitual for Crowned Heads to pronounce, but I advance by an inner urge I cannot resist. With bowed head I recognize that I too am but an instrument in greater Hands and rejoice in the knowledge.

-- Jeff3000 00:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

She might have shared some sympathy for the movement. She died as an Eastren Orthodox believer and was buried as such - there was not even a word of talk of her having a Bahai funeral. Her youngest daughter BTW became later an Orthodox nun.

I thinkt that all that might be said is that she held sympathy for that movemnet - that I don't doubt - but remained herself officialy Eastern Orthodox till death -- unsigned by 130.37.120.109

Actually, she stated many times that she was a Baha'i and it was only through pressure from the surrounding authorities that she did not proclaim it more, and was not permitted to have a Baha'i funeral. Here are some of her writings to many people that show that she was a Baha'i and show the difficulties she had with the people around her

• God is all. Everything. He is the power behind all beings... His is the voice within us that shows us good and evil. But mostly we ignore or misunderstand this voice. Therefore, did He choose His Elect to come down amongst us upon earth to make clear His Word, His real meaning. Therefore the Prophets; therefore Christ, Muhammad, Bahá'u'lláh, for man needs from time to time a voice upon earth to bring God to him, to sharpen the realization of the existence of the true God. Those voices sent to us had to become flesh, so that with our earthly ears we should be able to hear and understand.

• Lately a great hope has come to me from one 'Abdu'l-Bahá. I have found in His and His Father, Bahá'u'lláh's Message of faith, all my yearning for real religion satisfied ...What I mean: these Books have strengthened me beyond belief, and I am now ready to die any day full of hope. But I pray God not to take me away yet, for I still have a lot of work to do.

• The Bahá'í teaching brings peace and understanding. It is like a wide embrace gathering all those who have long searched for words of hope... Saddened by the continual strife amongst believers of many confessions and wearied of their intolerance towards each other, I discovered in the Bahá'í teaching the real spirit of Christ so often denied and misunderstood.

• The Bahá'í teaching brings peace to the soul and hope to the heart. To those in search of assurance the words of the Father are as a fountain in the desert after long wandering.

• It was indeed nice to hear from you, and to think that you are of all things living near Haifa and are, as I am, a follower of the Bahá'í teachings. It interests me that you are living in that special house... I was so intensely interested and studied each photo intently. It must be a lovely place ... and the house you live in, so incredibly attractive and made precious by its associations with the Man we all venerate.

Also in the course of a visit to the Near East she was supposed to go visit the Bahá'í Shrines in Palestine, accompanied by her youngest daughter, but she was denied to right to make the pilgrimmage due to the people around her, She wrote in June 1931

• Both Ileana and I were cruelly disappointed at having been prevented going to the holy shrines and of meeting Shoghi Effendi, but at that time were going through a cruel crisis and every movement I made was being turned against me and being politically exploited in an unkind way. It caused me a good deal of suffering and curtailed my liberty most unkindly. There are periods however when one must submit to persecution, nevertheless, however high-hearted one may be, it ever again fills one with pained astonishment when people are mean and spiteful. I had my child to defend at that time; she was going through a bitter experience and so I could not stand up and defy the world. But the beauty of truth remains and I cling to it through all the vicissitudes of a life become rather sad ... I am glad to hear that your traveling has been so fruitful and I wish you continual success knowing what a beautiful message you are carrying from land to land.

On January 1, 1934 she wrote to Martha Root with something to be published in the journal "The Baha'i World" and added

• Will this do for Vol. V? The difficulty is to not repeat myself.

This last two quotes point at the constant pressure on the Queen, which Martha Root commented about, from both ecclesiastical and political factions to keep silent about a religion her open sponsorship of which they heartily disapproved of.

Before her death she wrote:

• More than ever today, when the world is facing such a crisis of bewilderment and unrest, must we stand firm in Faith seeking that which binds together instead of tearing asunder. To those searching for light, the Bahá'í teachings offer a star which will lead them to deeper understanding, to assurance, peace and goodwill with all men.

In 1938 when Queen Marie passed away a message of condolence was communicated to her daughter in the name of the Baha'i community, and her daughter wrote back, "sincere thanks to all of Bahá'u'lláh's followers." -- Jeff3000 17:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poor balance

Only one sentence in this article would give you a clue of the level of importance of this non-regnant queen: "After the war ended, she represented Romania at Versailles, gaining back territory lost by Romania during the war."

Marie was a pretty powerful figure. By most accounts, she was far more on top of things politically in Romania than her husband, the king, and Barbu Ştirbey, who is mentioned in passing as her "lover" was a major figure among Romanias landed aristocracy. But you'd never get that from this article as it stands. Nor would you know that she was involved in the arts well beyond the usual patronage expected of a monarch: she did most of the decoration of the Pelişor Palace herself.

But from this article as it stands, you'd largely see her as a princess traded to maintain dynastic arrangements. The entire 2-paragraph lead section is about parentage, baptism, marriage prospects. Surely we would never do this with a male of comparable historic importance.

Yes, I will eventually get to this if no one else does, but that could well be months away. If anyone else would like to try to put this in order, I'd appreciate it. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at this, using material from A.L. Easterman's book on Carol II written during World War II. Doubtless, though, there is a good biography of Marie herself out there somewhere. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

there are many biographies on queen marie... the most famous (and in my opinion the best) is hannah pakula's 'the last romantic'. also queen marie published her memoires, called 'the story of my life'. you did a very good job at updating, though, congratulations. ilya 08:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the Pakula book, but of course I should have thought of her memoir. I've never actually read it, but certainly knew it existed.

I think I did a fair job of pointing up her political importance. I'd still like to get more in here about (1) the fact that politically she was rather allied to the boyars, and (2) her inclinations toward the arts. She was something of a patroness of the arts, and also a moderately talented decorative artist herself (she did most of the interior decoration of Pelişor). If someone has some decent sources on either front, I'd like to get that into the article. Also, I gather that some letters of hers (I don't think it is in her memoir) make clear her level of contempt for her husband. That would be worth citing if someone has access to the relevant material. - Jmabel | Talk 05:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

i'm kind of in a busy period now, but when i get some time i'll reread her memoires to search for the things you mentioned... ilya

[edit] Paternity of Children

Where is the basis that some of her children are listed under different fathers or have uncertain paternity? I know that it is in all likelyhood that Prince Mircea was the child of Barbu Stirbey, but is there any basis in fact that three of her other children, Marie, Nicholas and Ileana were 100% not Ferdinand's biological children? At any rate, Prince Nicholas's physical characteristics were very Hohenzollern, including the hawkish nose that Ferdinand also possessed. I don't think we should list any of the children, with the exception of Mircea, as being sired by anyone else until there is some sort of evidence to the contrary. Morhange 23:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, where is the source for this statement: Also, Queen Marie has herself written that Princess Marie was sired by Grand Duke Boris Vladimirovich of Russia. ? Morhange 23:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about this in detail (I didn't write that passage), and I don't know a thing about the Russian Grand Duke. If someone wants to follow this up from primary sources, I'd go after either her correspondence with Loie Fuller (I'm not sure if much of that survives and is published; I know that the bulk of it was apparently seized by Romanian agents when Fuller died) or possibly her memoir. - Jmabel | Talk 00:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Marie admitted that one child was from Vladimirovich. Ileana was highly likely of Stirbey, as not only physical similarity but also alienation from Ferdinand. Lastly, Mircea is even more obvious thant Ileana (who is fairly obvious already).

The lack of scientific approach comes from those who falsely believe in the purity of royalty rather than the open-eyed persons who can see (with documentation in many cases) the lives these human beings of privilege led. They aren't angels, just people. They had all kinds of lovers, some of whom fathered/birthed children.

Biological paternity should be irrelevant for the table. The text can talk about the questionable biological paternity of Marie, Ileana, and Mircea, but legally all of them were Ferdinand's children, and every reputable genealogical source in existence lists them as such. john k 07:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medal Image

Would someone with a much better understanding of scaling down image sizes please fix this. I tried to lower the size of the medal image, but it won't work: Image:Medal - Marie of Romania.jpg Morhange 14:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why you want to size it down; it can be resized to any size in a page by typeing out:

[[Image:Medal - Marie_of_Romania.jpg|thumb|<size>px|<caption>]]

where <size> and <caption> should be filled in. Regards, -- Jeff3000 14:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Why the removal from Category:British royalty? The edit summary just says "cat tidy"; offhand, I don't see any other category here that implies that she was British royalty, so I'd expect it to be included. - Jmabel | Talk 17:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Never mind, spotted it, Category:English and British princesses. - Jmabel | Talk 17:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bahai

This section is way long, and I assume was written by, well, Bahais with an agenda to push. Can someone who is not a Bahai confirm that this stuff is actually true? And might we condense? john k 16:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)