Talk:Princess Charlotte of Wales (1796–1817)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articlePrincess Charlotte of Wales (1796–1817) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 7, 2011.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 15, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted

Portrait[edit]

I can't find a positive source for the portrait that the image is of, as to whether Sir Thomas Lawrence did the original painting or the engraving taken from it. redcountess 16:52, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Is this sufficient? NPG Sir Thomas Lawrence did not create engravings. Laura1822 22:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father[edit]

References needed for George IV being a doting father, as most accounts of him point out his selfishness. redcountess 17:30, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Charlotte Augusta?[edit]

Why is this article at Charlotte Augusta when Princess Charlotte of Wales redirects here? Surely the middle name is only used as a dab? DBD 17:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article should be under Princess Charlotte of Wales.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But shouldn't her full name be mentioned in the lead? The subject's full name is usually given in the lead sentence, per WP:MoS (biographies)#Names. Which would be better:

Princess Charlotte Augusta of Wales (7 January 1796 – 6 November 1817) was the only child of George, Prince of Wales (later George IV) and Caroline of Brunswick.

or

Princess Charlotte of Wales (Charlotte Augusta; 7 January 1796 – 6 November 1817) was the only child of George, Prince of Wales (later George IV) and Caroline of Brunswick.

? Surtsicna (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I too prefer the former option because the latter creates some redundancy. Surtsicna (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha?[edit]

Was she really styled HRH Princess Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? Was she Duchess Leopold in Saxony or Duchess Charlotte in Saxony? I was under impression that only British and Greek princesses by marriage use their husband's name after their princely title. Surtsicna (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like when she married prince Leopold, she would have been styled as "HRH Princess Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfield, Duchess of Saxony". Ideally, this title should be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:47:4200:5960:2524:8AE:B9C:23DB (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A search in the London Gazette shows that after her marriage she remained "Her Royal Highness the Princess Charlotte Augusta" and the couple were jointly styled "Their Royal and Serene Highnesses the Princess Charlotte and the Prince Leopold". Opera hat (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To get technical...[edit]

The article says "Had she lived, she would have been Queen of the United Kingdom." While for all practical purposes this is true, we can't really say with absolute certainty, can we? George IV could have married again and fathered a boy, at least theoretically. --Jfruh (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I solved the problem by adding Ceteris paribus (with other things the same) to the phrase. Pevernagie (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

It keeps saying Williams in the footnotes, but I can't see details of Williams - have I missed something?81.102.15.200 (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the bibliography. Is there a problem with how it appears?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement[edit]

I've started work on article improvement here, with a view towards getting this to FAC early this fall. All help gratefully welcomed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Though I am concerned with having such a large section dealing with events that took place well before her birth and a paragraph dealing with events that concern only individuals such as her uncle Edward and cousin Victoria. Of course, all of that should be mentioned (if relevant) but could it be less detailed? For example, one could write much about Elizabeth I of England's background (her father's break with Rome, first marriage, annulment, older daughter, etc) but that was all "squeezed" into one sentence. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll look at it. It is my thought tying it to Victoria and Albert brings the article, if not full circle, at least to a point of closure because of Leopold's involvement. And I think the reader deserves to know what happened to Leopold. I did exclude his second marriage and his daughter, Carlotta, which was in the old version. And the hatred between George and Caroline influenced Charlotte's wife. The whole thing is really a wonderful story, too little told these days, when few know or care who Princess Charlotte was.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I forgot that Leopold's being Victoria's adviser and uncle was significant because he was Charlotte's widower. But I still think that her father's "marriage" to Fitzherbert, search for a bride and the bride's preparation for marriage should be either removed or drastically "squeezed". I made a test edit to illustrate my suggestion. It might seem drastical (and it might be drastical), but the removed text was really hardly relevant to Charlotte. We have articles about her parents. I'll respect your opinion if you disagree. After all, you were the one who improved the article this much. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are bits of the background that could be squeezed, but I'd oppose knocking out the background entirely. The reader has to understand why there is dislike between Caroline and George. I don't think we can drop the reader into Georgian England cold, especially since Charlotte's life up until late adolescence is very much a reflection of her parents' actions. How do we explain why George was restricting Caroline's contact with Charlotte from infancy if we do not have a background section? --Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We should have a paragraph describing her parents' marriage before her birth, of course. When I say 'irrelevant', I refer to having an entire paragraph about George IV's relationship with Mrs. Fitzherbert and Lady Jersey, then a paragraph about choosing a bride for George IV and who preferred whom, and finally a large paragraph describing how Harris and George IV met Caroline and who said what. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to wait for other comments and see what other views are. I've asked Dr. Kiernan to review the article in prep for FAC, he will no doubt see this on talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main body reads very well, but I think the lead could stand some extra work.

Lead
  • I think the second sentence of the lead needs to say who her grandfather was, and I doubt that it's necessary to have the qualifying "most likely", at least in the lead. Such as: "For her entire life, she was second in the line of succession to the British throne. If she had outlived her father and grandfather (George III), she would have become Queen of the United Kingdom.
  • "the parenting of the child" looks clumsy and overformal, and the second clause of that sentence "left most of her care to governesses and servants." can be misread as referring to "his wife". Try something like: "Prince George left most of her care to governesses and servants, and only allowed limited contact with her mother, who eventually left the country."
  • "sought to have her marry" is a convoluted verb form, can we use "pushed her to marry"
  • "With King George III's only legitimate grandchild dead," comes too soon as we are not yet told that she is the only legitimate grandchild; "unwed sons to marry" looks odd. I suggest: "As she was King George III's only legitimate grandchild, there was pressure on the King's unmarried sons to quickly find wives and have children to secure the succession."
Girlhood
  • "normally resentful" needs to be bolstered with more than a single source.
  • "snuck" is an Americanism, and so might be frowned upon by the Anglocentric royalist lobby who occasionally police these pages.
Adolescence
  • "Visitors to Carlton House or one of her mother's parties" sounds as though Charlotte only misbehaved at one of her mother's parties, and not any others; is this correct? Should it be "Visitors to Carlton House and guests at her mother's parties"?
  • The juxtaposition of a father's pride and Jane Austen with a display of her underdrawers (Charlotte's not Jane Austen's) is jarring.
  • "clothing allowance sufficient only for a child" is hard to believe: how did it compare to the cost of clothing a family of labourers?
  • Is Charles Hesse the Duke of York's illegitimate son?
Confinement and courtship
  • I've had trouble in the past when using "the Continent" to refer to mainland Europe. "Isn't Britain in Europe?", is the usual witty query. [Unfortunately, yes, comes the equally witty response.] I have no problem with it personally; I'm just warning you.
  • Perhaps a modern equivalent for the monetary values? [I don't like them much myself, but people always ask.]

With regard to the first section, it's very amusing, so the vast bulk of it could be left in. However, parts of it could be reduced without loss. For example, The diplomat brought Caroline to St. James's Palace; when the Prince of Wales came in the room and first set eyes upon his bride, he looked at her and said, "Harris, I am not well, pray get me a glass of brandy."[5] After the Prince had left the room, Caroline stated, "My God! Is he always like that?" and "I think he is very fat and nothing like as handsome as his portrait." When the couple dined together that evening,... can be shortened to: At George and Caroline's first meeting, George looked at her and said, "I am not well, pray get me a glass of brandy."[5] Caroline stated afterwards, "My God! ... he is very fat and nothing like as handsome as his portrait." At dinner,... DrKiernan (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on these later this afternoon. Many thanks for your comments. With Shield nickel hung up over images, Charlotte will most likely be my next FAC, once Liberty Bell clears the page. A couple of specific points:
To a certain extent, I consider reader's expectation. If I deleted the story of Caroline and George's first meeting, I would simply be asked by a knowledgeable person to put it back in. On Hesse, yes, there are rumours that he was, but after the comments regarding Princess Sophia on the Ernest FAC, I was being cautions (Charlotte was supervised by General Garth on the Weymouth trip and met his "son", which I felt was excessive detail, btw). I will mention the rumors, perhaps "alleged to be the illegitimate son of Charlotte's uncle, Frederick, Duke of York" moving the link up there. Anyway, glad there wasn't anything more substantive.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating its removal, but my shortened version above is punchier, and as a consequence I think it's funnier. DrKiernan (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've shortened it, though modifying the phrasing, which should make it a bit funnier. I know this was actually tragic, as it turned out, but it was also quite funny.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the house was filled with the Yorks' dogs and their smell could be read as meaning the Yorks' smell. Can we have the house was filled with the Yorks' dogs, which stank or the house was pervaded by the smell of the Yorks' dogs or Charlotte thought "the air of the house is quite unwholesome, it is so infected & impregnated with the smell and breath of dogs, birds & all sorts of animals".[1] (Aspinall, A. (1949) Letters of the Princess Charlotte 1811–1817, London: Home and van Thal)? DrKiernan (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "Yorks' dogs and the odor of animals."--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image comments[edit]

As requested, below please find image comments:

  • File:GeorgeIV1792.jpg - Copyvio. This is a 3D object; thus the photograph itself must be free to be freely licensed. "Solution" is to crop out the locket and retain only the 2D portrait (I say "solution" because I view it as unethical, but it would not be deleted).
In respect to Elcobbola, we won't use it. If we can find it independently, or the painting on which the locket was based, that's different.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of England?[edit]

I am worried about "...stating that a future Queen of England should not marry a foreigner". She would not have become Queen of England; she would have become Queen of the United Kingdom. Although we are presumably paraphrasing Halford, I am afraid we might mislead readers into thinking that Charlotte lived in the Kingdom of England. Of course, I am fine with "I could not quit this country, as Queen of England still less" because it is a quote. Surtsicna (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until the twentieth century, everyone referred to monarchs of Great Britain and the United Kingdom as King or Queen of England. It was a universally accepted short hand in the way that "King of Spain" was for the Habsburg kings of Castile, Leon, Aragon, etc. etc. etc. At some point in the twentieth century, Scottish people got pissy about it, so now we say that the common usage of several centuries is "incorrect". I think this is fine; it's a paraphrase of the remark of someone from a time when such use was perfectly acceptable. john k (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the Queen of the United Kingdom is still called Queen of England, isn't she? Let's assume that we should use one title because the Scots dislike another (which I find a bit silly); why would referring to Elizabeth II as Queen of England be tolerated less than referring to Charlotte as a "future Queen of England"? Surely if the Scots mind using the title for the present sovereign, they also mind using it to refer to her post-1707 predecessors? Would a direct quote (if it exists) satisfy all? Surtsicna (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will change it to Queen of Britain, as I don't want to quote too much directly from Charlotte, saving the quotes we have for things which show off her personality and thinking. Incidentally, Surtsicna, good catch on the Princess thing, but actually it is perfectly proper to call Caroline "Princess Caroline" as she was a princess by birth, a status not affected by her marriage. Di was "Lady Diana Spencer".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought she was only a duchess prior to her marriage. Now I see the article about her says otherwise. Thanks for clarification! Anyway, if you believe her name is desirable, I wouldn't mind putting it back in (even though "the Princess of Wales", in my opinion, goes better with "the Prince Regent", who is not normally called "Prince George"). As for quotes... Surtsicna (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine, and there are a couple of "Princess Caroline"s in there still. It's all good.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My sense is that, in German, Caroline would have been Herzogin, but that she would have been called "Princess" in English at the time. I had thought that, before the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, only ladies from the Saxon and Prussian dynasties (and maybe Bavaria?) would have been Prinzessin. This did not stop the British from translating the titles of pretty much all junior members of German princely dynasties as "Prince" or "Princess." john k (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see the inscription on the engraving of Caroline in the "background" section.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes[edit]

I hope you don't mind my being a bit nitpicky.... but I am curious about the quotes in the article. For example, in "take the next best thing, which was a good tempered man with good sence [sic] ... that man is the P of S-C" and "I see that he is compleatly [sic] poisoned against me, and that he will never come round" - I would like to know why the misspelled words are misspelled. Was a could've-been-queen's spelling really that bad or were those words correctly spelled that way in the 19th century? I am asking not only because I am curious, but also because I am not sure that [sic] should be there if the words were normally spelled that way 200 years ago. Surtsicna (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've run into this one before, and learned a bit I hope. If you look at the article sic, it points out that sic is to not only point out an error, it is to point out an archaic or unusual spelling. They give the example:
"The word sic may be used to show that an uncommon or archaic usage is reported faithfully: for instance, quoting the U.S. Constitution:
The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker ..."
I've run into this most recently at Liberty Bell, which famously spells its colony, "Pensylvania", which was an acceptable variant spelling then, and of course attracts a sic template.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That explains it. Surtsicna (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick William[edit]

The article says he got engaged to another woman but I haven't been able to find that information in German Wiki's article about him. I've translated the article; it mentions his two mistresses but says nothing about his fiancée. Who was she? Did they marry? The article about him should not ignore his engagement if this article mentions it. On the other hand, I am not sure how to mention his engagement in the article about him without specifying who his fiancée was. Surtsicna (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't say. It is an interesting point. I wonder it Charlotte was lied to or given bad information.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aspinall's Introduction to Letters of Princess Charlotte says Frederick married "a daughter of the Prince of Anhalt-Bernburg" on 21 November 1817. According to the article here: Alexius Frederick Christian, Duke of Anhalt-Bernburg, that would mean Princess Wilhelmine Louise of Anhalt-Bernburg. However, note that none of this says he was engaged to her in 1814, so it is not proof that she was the reason for Charlotte's dismay. DrKiernan (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I've just spotted that we may have the wrong Prince Frederick. Aspinall says the one Charlotte was interested in died in 1863: which means de:Friedrich von Preußen (1794–1863), the son of Prince Louis Charles of Prussia; that then ties in with the information in Alexius Anhalt's article about him being the grandson of Frederick William II. DrKiernan (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm reading more of Aspinall now; he definitely thinks that Prince Frederick of Prussia refers to the the son of Prince Louis who lived 1794–1863 and married into the Anhalt-Bernburgs. DrKiernan (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, I basically translated the wrong article? Well, at least being nitpicky proved to be useful :) I'll try to translate the article about the right Frederick, though I'll miss Polish and Russian Wikis this time. Surtsicna (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen where the confusion comes from now. Aspinall says that Charles Greville (diarist) says Margaret de Flahault, 2nd Baroness Keith told him in September 1832 it was Prince Augustus of Prussia (1779–1843) but it is not clear whether this is a mistake on her part or on Greville's. DrKiernan (talk) 08:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I wonder if the comments in the Charlotte bios that Prince FW was often called "August" derive from this, and if they are an attempt to bridge divergent facts, and are flat out wrong. Oh well, such is life on Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hibbert thinks "Prince Frederick of Prussia" refers to Frederick William IV of Prussia. I'm suspicious of this, because although Frederick William III of Prussia visited London accompanied by the three other Frederick Williams (Frederick William IV of Prussia, Prince Frederick of Prussia (1794–1863), and Prince Augustus of Prussia) they can be and were distinguished from one another: Frederick William was called the Prince Royal, Frederick was called Frederick and Augustus was called Augustus. Hence, if the original contemporary documents refer to Frederick, they mean Frederick, and if they refer to Augustus, they mean Augustus. Charlotte's letters refer to Augustus as "Augustus", which indicates there was no need to hide his name with a code, while the suitor is referred to as "F", which Aspinall supposes to be Frederick. It is also clear that Greville, and those that follow him like Strachey and Pearce, refer to Augustus, and that Knight says it was Augustus who went to Warwick House. It is also clear from Charlotte's letters that Augustus's "marriage de haut voix" was the talk of the town in January 1815 [the first mention of him in Aspinall], and that he was considered "the black sheep in the family & que sa main gauche a était offert a tous les jolie femmes en Allemagne & partout où il a était au grand amusement des dames. [sic]" but it is F who is the object of her letters in November, and the statement about "take the next best thing" is in a paragraph about F. It is F who falls from favor in December. What is Williams' source on page 107 for the letter of 14 December? Is it an inference or an actual letter that still exists and contains a name? DrKiernan (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Williams cites to Aspinall at page 169, a letter to Miss Elphinstone. The actual quote from Williams (I know you can't view Google Books for this, but anyone who can, it is there) is "On December 14, she wrote 'My heart has had a very sudden & great shock'. The party returned from Weymouth to Windsor. There, Charlotte found a letter from Miss Elphinstone with the awful news that her beloved Prince August was engaged to be married to another woman—a Miss Rumbolt." --Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this seems like quite a mess. john k (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, I think that the intended will let us know which prince was meant, and after that it is just a matter of cleanup.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems like a variety of different sources identify the prince with completely different personages. john k (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A mess, indeed. I'm inclined to believe that the suitor was Prince Frederick of Prussia (1794–1863). We would've been certain had it been Frederick William IV; a) biographers would've surely noted that she was suited by the heir apparent and future King of Prussia, b) marriage between a 19th-century King of Prussia and Queen of the United Kingdom is hard to imagine, c) Frederick William married in 1823 and I doubt he was engaged for nine years (1814-1823). I doubt it was Prince Augustus of Prussia because a) he never got married and there is no mention of him being engaged, b) he was 17 years her senior while the other two were older than her only a year or two, c) he was at the time in a serious relationship (1805-1817) with the mother of his four children (for what it's worth). Surtsicna (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good logic, even if it had been entirely the product of Charlotte's fevered teenage imagination, it still would be mentioned in the future King's biographies. "While in London, the prince attracted the attention ..." that kinda thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rumbolt is August's supposed amour, and is mentioned in Charlotte's letter of January 1815 but this is on page 175 of Aspinall: the letter on page 169 of Aspinall from 14 December does not mention any names, nor does it explicitly say Elphinstone wrote to her. I think the letter from Elphinstone (if it ever existed) is now lost, probably destroyed by Charlotte when she began erasing her correspondence, and Williams has inferred from the later surviving letters that the breach in December was with Augustus not Frederick and that this was due to the gossip mentioned in the letter of January. This inference is not shared by Aspinall, who is a highly reputable expert, and so cannot be stated in the article as a fact.

I think you'll have to change "By then, Charlotte had become interested in Prince Frederick of Prussia, and they met several times." to something like "According to Charles Greville, by then Charlotte had become interested in Prince Augustus of Prussia, whom she met at least twice,[2] although historian Arthur Aspinall thought his cousin Prince Frederick was her suitor and not Augustus.[3]"

Then "She was still infatuated...blah, blah...was engaged to another woman." would become "She was still infatuated with her Prussian suitor, and hoped in vain that he would declare his interest in her to the Prince Regent. If he did not do so, she wrote to a friend,[note I've removed Knight here because Aspinall says she was writing to Elphinstone] she would "take the next best thing, which was a good tempered man with good sence [sic] ... that man is the P of S-C" [Prince of Saxe-Coburg, i.e. Leopold].[4] In December, [Note the change as Aspinall only has letters from the 11th (still besotted) and 14th (decrying "the faithlessness of the most beloved"] she had received news that her suitor was unfaithful and had formed another attachment.[4]" DrKiernan (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt a different edition of Aspinall was used? No doubt something like that can be said, although the language can be tidied up and it may be best moved in part to a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a different edition because the quote 'My heart has had a very sudden & great shock' is from the letter of 14 December on page 169. On page 170 we have Charlotte returning to Windsor from Weymouth on the 16th, which is followed on page 171 by a letter of 18 December to Elphinstone where Charlotte does refer to letters from Elphinstone "about F" and "bad news". Then follows a letter on pp. 173-4 of 22 December referring to "your news that no marriage has taken place yet", which is followed on page 175 by a letter of 8 January which says "I asked the Duke about P. Augustus's marriage de haute voix, & he instantly asked the Dss. of York, as he is her cousin, whether she knew if it had actually taken place with Miss Rumbolt, & I think she said — [sic]." This corroborates Williams who says Charlotte returned from Weymouth after the 14th, and then received a letter, and it's reasonable for Williams to infer that "F" is Augustus. The problem is that Aspinall thinks it's Frederick. DrKiernan (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can't tell which one of them was engaged to a. Rumbolt? Not a common name, surely?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely Prince Augustus is the one who was engaged to a Rumbolt, since Charlotte says that specifically. The question is whether "F" is Augustus or Frederick. It seems to me that what we have here is a disagreement between our sources - Aspinall (who for some reason is not listed in the bibliography) believes that "F" is Frederick, while Williams believes him to be Augustus (And this is also what Greville reports). I'm not sure it's our job to resolve this. Both Aspinall and Williams seem to be more or less reliable sources; I think the solution is that we should mention that historians aren't sure which Prussian prince was Charlotte's suitor, and mention both possibilities (and maybe the possibility that it was the Prince Royal, as well, assuming this is reported in any reliable sources). john k (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think, Dr.Kiernan, perhaps put it in a footnote? Do you want to do the honours?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmn. Passing the blame on to me, eh? I've put something into the running text based on the draft above. I think we can probably ignore Hibbert as his identification of "Prince Frederick of Prussia" as Frederick William IV is hidden in an incidental footnote, and he also mentions Prince Augustus as another suitor. If you want a footnote instead, and to incorporate these others suitors (Hibbert also mentions Prince Paul of Württemberg) then I suggest keeping the "great shock" quote but changing "According to Charles Greville...Prince Frederick of Prussia.[5]" to something like "Charlotte was still entertaining other potential suitors, and had become interested in a Prussian prince then visiting London as part of a diplomatic delegation.[6]" DrKiernan (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just easier for me to modify rather than compose, and that way I got you to put Aspinall in the references. I shall have to obtain a copy for my own reading perusal. I will play with the language later on, but it looks good. And it keeps the FAC on course ...--Wehwalt (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Letter from Charlotte to Mercer Elphinstone, 7 May 1816, quoted in Aspinall, p. 243
  2. ^ Greville, Diary, 18 September 1832
  3. ^ Aspinall, p. xvii
  4. ^ a b Aspinall, p. 165; Williams, p. 107
  5. ^ Aspinall, p. xvii
  6. ^ Identified as Prince Augustus of Prussia by contemporary Charles Greville, and as Prince Frederick of Prussia by historian Arthur Aspinall.

Well done[edit]

My compliments to the authors - what an interesting article, and what a pleasure to read, despite ending in tragedy. One of the best I have read some considerable time.

A few notes and queries, if I may:

  • I understand that the "triple obstetric tragedy" (death of child, mother, and physician) led to significant changes in obstetric practice: those in favour of intervention made progress over those who did not, including, in particular wider use of forceps[1] This may be worth noting in the "Aftermath" section.
  • The miscarriage - was that May 1816, the same month in which she was married? One wonders how she knew she was pregnant, rather than just "late", in the days before reliable pregnancy tests. Do we know when in May she attended the opera?
  • Given that the second pregnancy is one of the most salient events in her life story, the section heading "Confinement" (and courtship) gives somewhat the wrong impression, particularly as it comes immediately before "Marriage and death"!
  • Lady Elgin would appear to be Martha (née Whyte), widow of Charles Bruce, 5th Earl of Elgin and mother of the 6th and 7th Earls (the latter the Elgin of the Elgin Marbles)
  • Lady de Clifford is the grandmother of George Keppel, 6th Earl of Albemarle, so presumably Sophia (née Campbell), widow of Edward Southwell, 20th Baron de Clifford?
  • Are we sure that the obstetrician John Sims mentioned is John Sims (taxonomist), who seems to be primarily a botanist?
  • No articles on the right Montague House, Warwick House, Charles Hesse, William Austin or Julie de St Laurent? How sad.

-- Jttw (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will doublecheck on the date on the opera bit and in the meantime take the date out of the article. Excellent points. I agree, an article should be written on William Austin, I may do so myself. Thank you for the praise. I try to be thorough and in this case, Charlotte's voice in her letters just makes the article. I will work through the other things when I am home and have my sources before me, next week.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any objection to me trying to fix some of these myself? -- Jttw (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'd forgotten this. As I leave for California on Saturday the odds are against my doing much. Feel free. And yes, that is the correct John Sims, I did check that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did see a "biography" of Julie de St Laurent in a bookstore, but it had her living to be over 100, and apparently that is questionable, so I didn't buy the book after checking online.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A 68 year old botanist? I think I would exclude him from the delivery suite too.
I have added the "triple obstetric tragedy" and changed "confinement" to "isolation", and added in the husbands of Lady Elgin and Lady de Clifford. I hope that is alright. -- Jttw (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine. Would you please put the citation you added into cite book format to match the rest of the article?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I know how to do that, but I have tried to make it look like the other one. I don't know which city it was published in, though. -- Jttw (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll clean up any remaining problems. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems indeed that the John Sims (taxonomist) and the physician were the same person. This is what's written on The Innominate Society of Louisville: "Dr. John Simms was 69 years old and was Croft’s senior colleague from the Royal Maternity Charity. He was the consulting accoucheur whenever labor became prolonged. In addition he was a distinguished botanist and Editor of THE BOTANICAL MAGAZINE. [...] One wonders about Simm’s ability as an obstetrician, because of his widespread interest. But a review of the Royal Maternity Charity Records where he was on staff shows that doubts about his ability were unfounded. [...] since he was not introduced to the Princess during her pregnancy, it was awkward to explain his presence during her labor, so he stayed in the next room. His consulting advice was based on Dr. Croft’s exams." Daphoenyx (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the titles, styles and arms section?[edit]

Why was it taken out? Sodacan (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had no sources for it, and a FAC coming up.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so we make it into a featured article by making it worse. john k (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There've been some pretty intense discussions about arms recently. I choose to take nothing on faith.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I can provide sources from the London gazette would that be okay? Sodacan (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine. Suggest putting it at the end, I'll adjust images to fit.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have already made her Coat of arms, but have not uploaded it yet, please make some space for it as well (when it is ready), still researching right now. Sodacan (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hurry. I maintain the FA's I've helped out on indefinitely and I have no plans to take it to TFA/R until December (Charlotte's birthday is January 7.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Coat of Arms
Shield of Arms

Original text[edit]

  • Titles, styles, honours and arms
  • Titles and styles
7 January 1796 – 2 May 1816: Her Royal Highness Princess Charlotte Augusta of Wales
2 May 1816 – 6 November 1817: Her Royal Highness Princess Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, Duchess in Saxony
  • Arms
For her marriage in 1816, the Prince Regent granted Charlotte personal arms — those of the kingdom, difference by a label argent of three points, the centre point bearing a rose gules. The label of three points is usually reserved for the children of a monarch — Charlotte was the daughter of the Prince Regent.

London Gazette[edit]

  • 16 Feb 1796- Birth Announcement: "Her Royal Highness the Infant Princess...Charlotte Augusta"
  • 4 May 1816- Marriage announcement: "Her Royal Highness the Princess Charlotte Augusta"
  • 14 May 1816 - "Her Royal Highness the Princess Charlotte Augusta" and "Her Royal Highness the Princess of Saxe-Cobourg"
  • 28 May 1816- "Her Royal Highness the Princess Charlotte Augusta of Wales"
  • 1 Jun 1816- "Her Royal Highness the Princess Charlotte Augusta of Wales"
  • 23 Jul 1816- "Her Royal Highness the Princess Charlotte Augusta of Wales"
  • 6 Nov 1817 - Announcement of death: "Her Royal Highness the Princess Charlotte Augusta"
  • 8 Nov 1817- "Her Royal Highness the Princess Charlotte Augusta"
  • 6 Dec 1817- "the Princess Charlotte Augusta of Wales"
  • 20 Dec 1817- "Her Royal Highness the Princess Charlotte Augusta" and "Her Royal Highness Princess Charlotte Augusta of Saxe-Cobourg"
  • 27 Dec 1817- "Charlotte Augusta of Wales"
  • [2]-Funeral service page with full titles

It seems to me that in most of the gazettes they refer to her after marriage as: 'Her Royal Highness the Princess Charlotte-Augusta, Daughter of His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, and Consort of His Serene Highness the Prince Leopold of Saxe-Cobourg.'

As for the Coat of arms, I cannot find the grant of arms in the gazette but there was a link Heraldica – British Royalty Cadency and I have a book which confirms it '...a label of three points Argent, charged on the centre point with a rose gules...' (PINCES, J.H & R.V., The Royal Heraldry of England, 1974, Heraldry Today. p.230)

I would rather not have a long string of London Gazettes in a section, but just references. Do the best you can.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are just examples, but I will try and do my best. Sodacan (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Father and husband - kings or princes?[edit]

She died as the wife of a prince and the daughter of a prince; both princes became kings after her death. So, shouldn't the infobox treat both equally? Currently, the husband is listed as "Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saafeld" and the father is listed as "George IV of the United Kingdom". Wouldn't it make more sense to have either "Leopold I of Belgium" and "George IV of the United Kingdom" or "Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saafeld" and "George, Prince of Wales"? Surtsicna (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and will change the infobox for dad to read "George, Prince of Wales". I have also changed the lede--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name and Title[edit]

Surely the entry should be entitled Charlotte Augusta, Princess of Wales, adopting the style used by her father George, Prince of Wales and the late Diana, Princess of Wales, rather than Princess Charlotte of Wales. The logic of such wording is that it is the title of Princess rather than the person that is associated with Wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.43.37 (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Princess of Wales is the title of the wife of the Prince of Wales. Charlotte was in the same position as Prince William of Wales today, and her title follows the same format: "Princess Charlotte of Wales". DrKiernan (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is now styled William, Prince of Wales. 62.101.205.175 (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was being discussed in 2011. William was given the title of Prince of Wales last September after the previous Prince of Wales became king. Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Mary Guest[edit]

Hi, my recent edit mentioning that the composer Jane Mary Guest was her piano teacher has been reverted on the grounds of "interesting but trivial". However, the article already states she was an accomplished pianist, and in any article about a musician the teacher is always mentioned when known. In addition, since this page is highly detailed in many other areas, one example being her shopping habits in Weymouth, I don't see why this should be regarded as being less important - over the years Charlotte must have spent a great amount of time at the keyboard with Guest, given this was one of the very few activities open to her. Does anyone else agree? - Aegoceras (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it is overdetailed. However if you want to do it as a parenthetical after mentioning her being an accomplished pianist rather than as a full sentence, I could deal with that. Say, (her piano teacher was composer and pianist Jane Mary Guest)----Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, will do. - Aegoceras (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that break up that sentence too much? Can it be worked into the sentence about the "large staff of instructors" since Miles was engaged in 1806? We could end the first sentence at "...only legitimate grandchild." and then mention Miles and the Bishop of Exeter as two notable teachers in the next sentence. DrKiernan (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...although the ensuing statement about their instruction making little impression would not have applied to Guest. BTW Charlotte's staff were all fired by her father in 1814 following the broken engagement, is that worth mentioning? - Aegoceras (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they were actually fired. It was just that Princess Charlotte's establishment at Montague House was dissolved as she was no longer living there. Since she was isolated at Cranbourne Lodge, her servants did not go with her, and she wasn't allowed to see outsiders. I would let it go at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Kiernan, I'm fine with reworking it. And do we really need to describe Guest as a pianist? If she taught it, jokes aside, I think that would be understood.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at how I've done it, both of you, and let me know what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks OK except wouldn't her fondness for Mozart and Haydn go with her accomplishment at the piano rather than her identification with Marianne - do we know exactly what aspect of Marianne she favoured? Its a minor point though, no real objection from me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aegoceras (talk • contribs) 13:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great. DrKiernan (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to review my sources and I'm not at home right now, Aegoceras. The obvious thing is the emotional nature. --Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well its fine anyway. I think the moved bit now fits really well. - Aegoceras (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George III: is "mad" a suitable description to read in 2011?[edit]

Regardless of C19th vocabulary, I do not believe that an encyclopaedia in 2011 should describe anyone as "mad". Neither the article on George III, nor that on Porphyria,use the word, except in reference to a play and later film. There is no modern medical context for use of the word, and plenty of accurate, modern, non-judgemental alternatives are available. "sorry, I prefer this" is not a defence of the current phrasing. Kevin McE (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps something along the lines of "a contrast to her grandfather (who was perceived to be mad) and her unpopular father". The problem is, the sentence talks about public perception and you cannot introduce twenty-first century attitudes to a Regency population. I would like to hear from other editors, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an improvement, although I suggest that we use modern language for a modern readership. "a contrast to her [[George_III_of_the_United_Kingdom#Later_life|mentally unstable]] grandfather and her unpopular father". Archaic language should be restricted to direct quotations: the editors' word choices should reflect a formal, professional tone. Kevin McE (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It is a perfectly appropriate word, and I am offering you a context you may find more suitable. It seems reasonable.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wehalt here - whatever we may think now, the folks then though George mad. Saying explicitly that it was a perception by the people of the time is fine, implying that they didn't think him mad isn't. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it clearly stated that this was the opinion of the time, it would be an improvement: I have already agreed that. But it simply says "her mad grandfather", it doesn't describe that as the historical perception. Kevin McE (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think "mentally unstable" is a bit too 21st century and also a bit vague - it could describe a wide variety of behaviour. I would back the term "mentally ill" though, that would be consistent with the George III page and also probably with wider Wikipedia usage, e.g. List of mentally ill monarchs. I think "mad" by itself should be avoided, I think "perceived as mad" would be perfectly OK although the use of parentheses is possibly undesirable (we just got rid of them in the previous discussion). BTW "descent into madness" is also mentioned later in the article, maybe this could be "descent into mental illness" - Aegoceras (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would contend that "mad" is far more vague: what clear modern definition does it have? Linking as I suggest allows the reader to consider further the nature of the instability. I had originally proposed "mentally ill", but Wehwalt validly pointed out that Porphyria (if indeed that is what he suffered) is not primarily a mental illness. It is, however, an illness that causes mental instability. Kevin McE (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's just the thing. We don't actually know that he had porphyria. That is I think the majority view, but we don't know it. Since the whole point of the view of the sentence is the view of the people, and the contrast of their view of Charlotte, I do not see the problem with saying they viewed him as mad. They did, you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only mentioned Porphyria because earlier today, in response to my text of (unspecified) "mental illness", you replied "Porphyria is not a mental illness". I think we are all agreed that there is no need to mention that condition specifically. Kevin McE (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about "a contrast to her grandfather, whose illness was perceived as madness, and her unpopular father". The bit later in the article could be "descent into illness". -Aegoceras (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may play with the final language a bit to polish the prose, but can we agree on something like: "Charlotte's death set off tremendous mourning among the British, who had seen her as a sign of hope and a contrast both to her unpopular father and to her grandfather, whom they deemed mad."--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aegoceras, let's settle the part that goes on the main page and which is of primary concern to Kevin, then we can go deal with the other part.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. As for me, I'm fine with your wording. -Aegoceras (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking for the later reference in the article: "Late in 1810, the King's illness (today widely believed to be porphyria) began to seriously, and permanently, affect his mind."--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then to keep up prose standards, change "his illness" in the next sentence to "his plight".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, except maybe the porphyria bit should be more tentative, in line with the George III article - maybe "(possibly a symptom of porphyria)" - Aegoceras (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just cut out the porphyria, as the source doesn't mention it. "Late in 1810, the King's illness began to seriously, and permanently, affect his mind."--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me - Aegoceras (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the proposals "Charlotte's death set off tremendous mourning among the British, who had seen her as a sign of hope and a contrast both to her unpopular father and to her grandfather, whom they deemed mad": my preference would still be for a modern term, rather than feeling that Alan Bennett's play title virtually obliges us to a word that we would not otherwise use, and which the article on George III is able to avoid with little difficulty. Kevin McE (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, I think you inadvertently mangled one of my previous comments above (the one at 16:23), I have restored it. Anyway, it looks like we have agreement now...? - Aegoceras (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That will have been part of the brainstorm I had with copying and pasting that resulted in me posting a declaration that I was happy with either of two identical phrases! Sorry. Kevin McE (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the play was a bonus, but I felt it just read very well as I had it. There's a knack to writing ledes, to get the maximum mileage out of words ... anyway I will change them now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK to change the later occurrence to descent into illness as Aegoceras suggested? Kevin McE (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wording that Wehwalt and I eventually settled on (see above) was "Late in 1810, the King's illness began to seriously, and permanently, affect his mind." Wehwalt mentioned this wording being supported by his source - Aegoceras (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that OK with you, Kevin?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orange engagement agreement[edit]

Why would the Dutch throne pass to the German branch of the House of Orange (Nassau-Weilburg) in the case Charlotte and William had one son? Wouldn't it had gone to Williams' younger brother Prince Frederick of the Netherlands who was still alive and potentially able to sire sons.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background too long?[edit]

Does the article need five paragraphs of background? The section's entire point in this article is to portray her parents as not getting along with each other, and that can easily be accomplished in a sentence or two, or one paragraph at most. Caroline not having washed for days prior to meeting, George requesting brandy upon meeting her, the disastrous dinner, etc, are all anecdotes that really tell us nothing about the subject of this article. Surtsicna (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me. This is longish, FA-quality, article on someone who died very young. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed a great article, but FA-quality does not mean immaculate. Made-up royal titles were there since the article was promoted to FA, and it took 9 years to remove them. The anecdotes are off topic; the detailed history of George and Caroline's relationship before Charlotte's birth is covered in articles about them. I also see no reason to bring up Lady Jersey (mentioned three times before Charlotte's birth and not once after or in connection with Charlotte), or the Irish officer, or Louise of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Pedro II of Brazil was similarly disillusioned with his wife Teresa Cristina, but that is only briefly mentioned in the FA about their firstborn, Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil, who died aged 2. This article contains 35 paragraphs, the first 6 of which are not really about Charlotte. Surtsicna (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence portrait[edit]

@DrKay, the connection between the portrait and the accusations is a minor point, but I thought it tied nicely to the section. I read about it at the Royal Collection page, according to which the accusations did indeed involve this painting. "The Princess stated that Lawrence 'stayed a few nights, that by early rising, he might begin painting on the picture before the Princess Charlotte (who as her residence was at that time at Shooter's Hill, was enabled to come early) or myself came to sit'." Surtsicna (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the future...[edit]

It can be expected that the current Duke of Cambridge will be created Prince of Wales,at which point the current Princess Charlotte of Cambridge will become Princess Charlotte of Wales and there will need to be some differentiation (although if she does not die untimely as her kinswoman here covered did,the living Princess Charlotte will likely move on to become Princess Royal).Should this be done by middle name?...date of birth?12.144.5.2 (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a decade away. It might never happen at all. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. Surtsicna (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to edit properly[edit]

If the page is being watchdogged, I would request that the person reverting most things, please at least be specific as to their issues. I can't edit to your standards unless I understand your problems.

Somehow the page edits you don't want changed are very simplistic in vocabulary, but then your ES are both truncated and use large words. "Text-source integrity restore" means... I added a break in-between two unrelated statements that came from the same source? Then I can put the source in the above paragraph too. But having a continuous blanket of statements isn't inherently correct just because they come from the same source. You have to break up the text. However, I'm not gonna edit on a guess this is correct (the source is only a surname and a page; I can't check it), only to have it reverted yet again with little to no explanation. ·• Comtesse d'Autodidactica (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, I should say, the source is just unavailable for me to check. ·• Comtesse d'Autodidactica (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think Wikipedia:Text-source integrity is unclear, you should raise the issue at that page. DrKay (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you the issue I had and you've still made it unclear as to the problem. You reverted me adding a break when the information stopped being related. I said I could add the source to the previous paragraph as well, but that you don't just pile up all info from a source into one huge run-on paragraph of unrelated info forever because it comes from a single source and you don't want to add the source again in a second paragraph. Makes no sense.

You're the one who keeps reverting edits rather than just correcting mistakes. I didn't know the mistake. I'm asking if THIS was the mistake and saying I can fix it. Again, I don't have the source as you must have. You had the ability to correct without reverting. ·• Comtesse d'Autodidactica (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already shown[3], the source is free and online. DrKay (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Augusta Charlotte" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Augusta Charlotte has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 7 § Augusta Charlotte until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Princess_Charlotte_of_Wales_(1796–1817)&oldid=1210620801"