Talk:Louise Lehzen

Citations needed

This work needs citations. I could not find any reference to the details (shown with {{Fact}} tags) listed here in the ODNB. Most of it appears to be a running commentary of the films "Victoria and Albert" and "Edward the King". PeterSymonds 11:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing "occaisional" a/b Victoria's responses to Lehzen.Catholic monarchist 20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Image

Theres an image here - http://www.btinternet.com/~sbishop100/ - would this be copyright expired, and useful for the article? Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Louise Lehzen. Jafeluv (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Baroness Louise Lehzen → Louise Lehzen — As she was created a baroness herself (rather than owing her title to her parentage) I believe the correct form would be Louise, Baroness Lehzen - rather ugly as an article title, in my opinion. I think the most straightforward article title would just be her first name and surname, as it was originally; see also WP:COMMONNAME. The article was moved to include "Baroness" on 12 January 2009 "per naming conventions", but I can't find anything in WP:NCP or WP:NCROY to support this. Opera hat (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Rename as nom. Technically it should be Louise Lehzen, Baroness Lehzen. The lead to the ODNB article is "Lehzen, (Johanna Clara) Louise, Baroness Lehzen in the Hanoverian nobility (1784–1870)": K. D. Reynolds, ‘Lehzen, (Johanna Clara) Louise, Baroness Lehzen in the Hanoverian nobility (1784–1870)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [1], accessed 1 Jan 2012. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It would be rather more useful to include elevation, with source and date, in the article. JCScaliger (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm working on it. Ruby 2010/2013 23:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Rename to Louise Lehzen, Baroness Lehzen per Peterkingiron and ODNB Ruby 2010/2013 23:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Move to Louise Lehzen, the most basic name given in search engines. Ruby 2010/2013 21:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Peterkingiron's comment says "rename as nom", i.e. to Louise Lehzen. Opera hat (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

WP:NAMINGCRITERIA are:

1. recognisability: any combination of her name and title isn't really going to refer to anyone else.
2. naturalness: the most natural form for users to search for would be Louise Lehzen. The form most likely to appear in another article would be Baroness Lehzen.
3. precision: but only as much as is necessary to avoid disambiguation. Louise Lehzen is sufficient.
4. conciseness: Louise Lehzen, Baroness Lehzen is unnecessarily long.
5. consistency: there is no existing guideline on Briefadel at WP:NCROY. A look at other article titles for German nobility shows no particular trend; some omit the noble title (e.g. Manfred von Richthofen, a Baron; Ludwig von Wallmoden-Gimborn, a Count; Otto von Bismarck, a Prince) while others include it (e.g. Christian Friedrich, Baron Stockmar; Hans, Count von Bülow; Daisy, Princess of Pless). There are some where the family name and noble title are both included in the article title (e.g. Isaak Löw Hofmann, Edler von Hofmannsthal; Alexander von Mensdorff-Pouilly, Prince Dietrichstein von Nicolsburg) but the only examples I've found are when they are different. In this case they are the same.

I think Louise Lehzen is really the best option. Opera hat (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Baroness Louise Lehzen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jarry1250 (talk · contribs) 22:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Before I perform a full review, there are some image licensing queries to clear up:

• File:Baroness_Louise_Lehzen.jpg needs source information. Since the original uploader does not tell us from where he got the image, it should be re-sourced from one of the many books that has used the image, or another reputable site that includes details of the provenance of the image.

• Very odd, but I can't seem to find a suitable source for the image anywhere online. I deleted it from the article until something better comes along. Ruby 2010/2013 04:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• File:Baroness Louise Lehzen.jpg‎: I have put my queries on this one to the uploader at Commons, awaiting a response.
• File:Baroness Lehzen, 1842.jpg is definitely replaceable with a free image, so please go ahead and find one you like :)

• Need a little clarification on this one. Should I upload a new copy of the image from a different source, or change the licensing on the current one? B/c I think the Royal Collection is a fantastic source. But I'm not quite the expert on Wiki image policy I wish I was! :) Ruby 2010/2013 04:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Under the NFCC, we don't allow any non-free images where there are free alternatives. Note that this image is only non-free because of the frame; most photographs of paintings of Lehzen on the internet (without a frame) would be regarded as free. You just need to upload one. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 22:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Added File:Baroness Lehzen, 1842 by Koepke.jpg (couldn't find any suitable ones in color). How does it look? Ruby 2010/2013 23:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Note from the prose (virtually all of a very strong standard IMHO):

• "George IV to award them both titles": Conroy's article does not seem to mention him receiving a title in 1827, or have I missed something?

• The source is referring to Conroy's knighthood (he was made a knight commander of the Hanoverian Order). I figured this was too much detail to put in an article about Lehzen. Ruby 2010/2013 04:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, right, I was getting confused because Conroy's article doesn't mention that at all except in the categories; if you have a source, it might be a nice idea to fix that. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 22:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Done Ruby 2010/2013 23:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding "the famous scene": do the references support the idea that this actually happened, or may it be apocryphal? This should be noted in the text, I feel.

• The scene is an account of Lehzen, which I now made clear in the article. The story has passed into English folk legend, which I also added into the article. Thanks for the notice. Ruby 2010/2013 04:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Great. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 22:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• "who taught her charge to become a strong, informed woman." This feels a little POV to me, do you have any thoughts on an alternative wording?

• I changed taught to wanted in keeping with the source. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 04:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Sure, sounds good. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 22:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• "who responded more and more infrequently to her mentor at Lehzen's request" (my wording, tweaked slightly from original) Lehzen = mentor? Why would Lehzen request infrequent replies? Or did she just request less frequent correspondence in general?

• Changed mentor to former governess. And Rappaport writes that, "Victoria dutifully wrote to Lehzen every week; with time it became once a month (at Lehzen's request)". It is not made clear why Lehzen would request this (perhaps she understood the queen had more important things to do with her time). Ruby 2010/2013 04:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have adjusted the wording further to make sure something that isn't warranted isn't accidentally applied. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 22:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have made a number of copyedits, mostly for POV, which you should probably look over to make sure I haven't changed the sense.

Otherwise, looking good :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 22:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review! I have replied to your comments, let me know if have noticed anything else that needs fixing. Best, Ruby 2010/2013 04:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking good, we just need that non-free image swapped for a free alternative before the article can be passed. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 22:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Since title isn't a criterion, I am happy to pass the article :) Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 16:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Title

Ought not the title of the article to be corrected? "Baroness Lehzen" or "Louise Lehzen" is correct; "Baroness Louise Lehzen" is a form unknown to Burke, Debrett, the London Gazette and the Court Circular (see, e.g., The Times, 9 November 1829, p. 2). I don't think you can plausibly have a Good Article with an inaccurate title. Tim riley (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I had reviewed this issue, but looking at it again, there doesn't seem a compelling reason to deviate from whatever teh accepted convention on baronesses is. Unfortunately I don't have the time to dig that out at present. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 18:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I would support a move to Louise Lehzen or Louise Lehzen, Baroness Lehzen. I'm not too picky on either. I doubt consensus will be difficult to achieve for the former (the article's last title before the move). I'm hopeful this will not get in the way of the GA nom, but I understand if the move should be addressed first. I'll weigh in on the talkpage discussion again. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 21:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please let me know if two-penn'orth from me would be of any use if you raise this point on the article talk page, or indeed anywhere else. Tim riley (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Ruby 2010/2013 00:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jarry! You've been a very helpful reviewer, and really aided in improving the article. Warm regards, Ruby 2010/2013 17:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sic?

The article includes the following sentence:

Reports of the reasons behind Lehzen's departure varied; court diarist Charles Greville noted she was leaving "for her health (as she says), to stay five or six months, but it [sic] is supposed never to return."

What is the sic for? It usually represents a spelling or grammatical error that has been faithfully reproduced in the quote but I can't see anything wrong there. Road Wizard (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I checked back in the article history to see if the quote had been changed, but it has remained the same since it was added.[2] Road Wizard (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The grammatical error is the "it is supposed never to return" part, when current usage would be "she is supposed never to return". True, this is 1842 English, but I think this is an error. I'd be willing to remove it if you object to its use. Ruby 2010/2013 00:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think "it" is the correct usage here. "She is supposed never to return" has a nuance that it is her opinion (especially after he quotes her in the start of the sentence) whereas "it is supposed..." has the nuance that the supposition is separate from her (perhaps as court gossip).

I don't think it makes too much difference really as long as there is this explanation on the talk page. My initial concern (before I checked the history) was that the quote had been added with a typographical error but someone had ignored the [sic] and corrected it. Road Wizard (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it after deciding it wasn't truly needed given the date of the quote. It's not really conceivable that we add [sic] tags for all quotations written in older English, after all. Thanks for raising the issue. Ruby 2010/2013 02:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

timeline incongruity

The article says she entered the household of Princess Victoria in Dec. 1819, yet a few sentences later, it says she and the whole family were moved to England in 1817. Well, she couldn't have moved to England with the family two years BEFORE she went to work for them!