Talk:Mary of Teck/Archive 1

Archive 1

older entries

After the death of George V, Queen Mary was indeed a queen mother and a queen dowager. However, she was never styled "queen mother" or "queen dowager" in official documents or the Court Circular. She was titled "Her Majesty Queen Mary" from 1936 until her death in 1953. Queen Mary's daugther-in-law, the former Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons, only adopted the style "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother" in February 1953 to distinguish herself from the new Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II. The late Queen Elizabeth is the only person in British history to have formally used the words "Queen Mother" as part of her title.

According to Buckingham Palace (whom I consulted) Queen Mary was indeed styled Queen Mother until 1952 and from 1952 to her death Dowager Queen Mother. I have also seen her referred to as such in state papers. However she expressed a personal preference to be called Queen Mary and that was honoured in many state papers and in the Court Circular. Nor is QE the QM the first person to formally use QM as part of her title. A former coach belonging to Queen Alexandra, which was sold after her death and which was used in the Irish presidential inauguration in 1945 was recorded as having belonged to "Queen Alexandra the Queen Mother". FearÉIREANN 22:06, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

People seem to believe this very wide-spread myth of "QEtQM" being the "first" to use the style of Queen Mother... it must be something they were taught in their impressionable youths. Perhaps a note in the article pointing out it is wrong would be good prophylaxis against future "corrections"? -- Someone else 22:10, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

As regards her titles--was her title as the Queen Consort of George V simply 'Her Majesty The Queen'? She was styled 'Her Majesty Queen Mary' in the Regency Act 1910: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/ukregency.htm#1910 Mapple 13:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Revised

I have revised this page to include more detail in a better structure and with a suitable picture of Mary. I havn't bothered keeping what was discussed above, becuase I don't think it that relevant, but I guess it could be added as a footnote.

Princess of Württemberg

Princess May of Teck was never a princess of Württemberg. Her father, Francis, Duke of Teck was never entitled prince of Württemberg (Prinz von Württemberg) because he was the product of a morganatic marriage.

Use name

A statement formerly appeared in the article to the effect that the reason Victoria Mary Augusta Louisa Olga Pauline Claudine Agnes became Queen Mary was that the reigning Queen Victoria wished that there should never be another Queen Victoria after her death. I corrected this to read: "(This was because she normally did not use the name Victoria, not because of any supposed wish by Queen Victoria that no British Queen be named Victoria after her death. Victoria had in fact named her eldest children Victoria and Albert in full expectation that, in the event, they would use these as their regnal names.)" But I have now removed it on the grounds that it's too detailed and argumentative.

But in this space I would like to make clear that there is no evidence that Victoria never wanted another Queen Victoria; rather the opposite. During her lifetime, most of her descendants had "Albert" or "Victoria" among their names due to Victoria's express desire to have her and her husband's names to descend in perpetuity. What Queen Mary may have thought of the idea is another matter; in any case she never used Victoria as her use name and would have been called Queen Mary regardless of Queen Victoria's wishes. -- Kalimac

Introduction

Revised: she should be introduced as Princess Mary of Teck, since that is the title of the article. Queens consort of england are known by their maiden names in any reputable encyclopedia, plus this article itself is titled that way

The superfluous use of "HRH" and Majesty removed because it is reserved for living people only. It is a form of address and as far as i know you can't address a dead person. It's not used for any of the Tudor articles etc and i think the people who are doing it are zealous Royalists. It's enough just to put what she would have been called at the time once only. In history books these titles are never mentioned.

Was her name not techincally Victoria?

Correction, the first of Queen Mary's names was Victoria. However, when her husband, King George V, ascended the British throne, shw as asked in what name did she want to be known. She decided she could not be known as "Queen Victoria" so used "Queen Mary". This was fitting because her family called her "May" all of her life up to her ascension as Queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.59.224 (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

chef?!

• Husaren-Regiment Fürst Blücher von Wahlstatt, Chef

I changed this to read Chief, but I'm to assume thats German, and for all I know the proper term is actually chef. If this is the case please change it (of course) and leave me a note on my talk page.

Liastnir 14:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Chef is the german word for "Boss" or "head".

Full Name?

I'm wondering why the Queen's full name (the imposing "Victoria Mary Augusta Louise Olga Pauline Claudine Agnes" has been edited out. It's useful information (and I just love the idea that one of her names was "Agnes"), and if there is no good reason it shouldn't be there, I will restore it. Robertissimo 04:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it should be there. john k 14:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree! I've also capitalised "consort" in her title as is standard. (See "Queen Dowager," "Queen Mother.")--Marysunshine 02:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Queen Mary was going to be called Princess Agnes of Teck, but Princess Mary Adelaide changed it to Victoria Mary to please Queen Victoria- she was the godmother

Hmm, I think that "consort" should not be capitalised because she was not styled "HM The Queen Consort" but simply "HM The Queen [consort]", as opposed to "HRH The Prince Consort" and "HM The Queen Mother". Surtsicna (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Descent from house of Habsburg?

Was Mary actually descended from the house of Habsburg (via Württemburg)? If so, could someone provide the line of descent. I'm trying to work out the most recent Holy Roman Emperor that Elizabeth II is descended from. I've only managed Ferdinand I so far... Lec CRP1 11:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There are several descents to choose from, one is:

Ferdinand I | Marie of Austria m. Wilhelm, Duke of Cleves | Marie Eleonore (d.1608) m. Albrecht Friedrich, Duke of Prussia | Anne of Prussia (1576-1625) m. Johann Sigismund, Elector of Brandenburg | Georg Wilhelm, Elector of Brandenburg (1595-1640) | Friedrich Wilhelm, Elector of Brandenburg (1620-1688) | Philip, Margrave of Brandenburg-Schwedt (1669-1711) | Friedrich Wilhelm, Margrave of Brandenburg-Schwedt (1700-1771) | Friederike Sophie Dorothea (1736-1798) m. Friedrich Eugen, Duke of Wurttemberg | Ludwig of Wurttemberg (1756-1817) | Alexander of Wurttemberg (1804-1885) | Francis, Duke of Teck (1837-1900) | Mary of Teck

Both the Queen and Prince Philip are also descended from Ferdinand through Christian IX:

Ferdinand I | Marie of Austria m. Wilhelm, Duke of Cleves | Marie Eleonore (d.1608) m. Albrecht Friedrich, Duke of Prussia | Sophie of Prussia (1582-1610) m. Wilhelm Kettler, Duke of Courland | Jacob Kettler, Duke of Courland (1610-1682) | Marie Amalie of Courland (1653-1730) m. Karl, Landgrave of Hesse | Wilhelm VIII, Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel (1682-1760) | Friedrich II, Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel (1720-1785) | Karl of Hesse-Cassel (1744-1836) | Louise Caroline of Hesse-Cassel (1789-1867) m. Friedrich Wilhelm, Duke of Schleswig-Holstine-Sonderburg-Glucksburg | Christian IX, King of Denmark (1818-1906)

And Diana Spencer was also a descendant via the illegitimate children of the Stuart kings:

Ferdinand I | Johanna of Austria m. Francis de Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany | Marie de Medici m. Henry IV, King of France | Henrietta Maria m. Charles I | etc.

You are right in thinking that Ferdinand is the latest Habsburg traceable to the British royal family.

Personally, I don't think that Mary's descent from the Habsburgs is of note, given that the majority of European nobles are descended from them in one way or another. DrKay 08:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's roughly what I got. I tried tracing back through the Württemburg line on here, but eventually came up against red links, so I decided to ask on here. I'd've thought that if Habsburg descent was mentioned on the Mary of Teck article that it would have been more recent than Emperor Ferdinand I, but there you go.

I'm fairly sure half of Europe is descended from the Habsburgs in mostly illegitimate lines... Lec CRP1 19:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Second reversion

I've just reverted the section on the King's death for a second time. The history of these revisions is as follows:

• 20:50, 4 February 2007 Masalai (Talk | contribs) m (→Dowager Queen - unnecessarily coy euphemism; "supposedly" suggests the reported fact is bogus)
• 07:59, 5 February 2007 DrKay (Talk | contribs) (revert - "reportedly" sounds as though it was so reported at the time, rather than revealed 50 years later "supposedly" is OK because the King could have died anyway without intervention)
• 10:54, 11 February 2007 Masalai (Talk | contribs) m (→Dowager Queen - unnecessarily coy euphemism; "supposedly" suggests the reported fact is bogus)
• 07:41, 12 February 2007 DrKay (Talk | contribs) (second revert - see discussion)

If you wish to revert my reversion for a third time you need to come up with a different argument rather than use the same one again. DrKay 07:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've tried to come up with some better wording. Please take a look and let me know what you think. DrKay 08:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"in her own right"

The article states: "In her own right she held the title of a Princess of Teck in the Kingdom of Württemberg with the style Her Serene Highness." This is not correct. The Queen today is Queen in her own right; Mary was born as a princess because of her father's status. She was "Princess Mary of Teck." She was never "Princess of Teck", because that is the style of the wife of the Prince of Teck. Although the sentence uses the correct article ("a" rather than "the") before "Princess of Teck," it is misleading because it says "title of" and "in her own right." The sentence should be rephrased to say something like: "She was born Princess Mary of Teck" or "Before her marriage, she was Princess Mary of Teck." Laura1822 00:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

May

She was not known as May because of her birth month. In England, May was a common diminuative of Mary. 86.136.31.176 (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is. If the origin of her use of May is indeed related to her birth month and not the extremely common diminutive use then it absolutely needs a citation to some other source. Pyrope 12:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Lives of the Princesses of Wales by Mary Beacock Fryer, Arthur Bousfield, Garry Toffoli (1983: Dundurn Press Ltd. ISBN 0919670695) p.65: "[she] was known as Princess May from the month of her birth." DrKay (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It is said that she was known as "May" by her family. The average reader isn't her family. Should she be called "May" throughout the article? -- megA (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography does so. DrKay (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Pope-Hennessy, p.24: "Because of the month in which the little girl was born her doting mother would refer to her as 'my May-flower' or, more simply, 'May'. The spring name caught ... until the year in which her husband ascended the throne of England [she] was known affectionately to her friends and to the English public as 'Princess May'." DrKay (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Alan Michie's "God Save The Queen," published in 1952, while she was still alive, Queen Mary was nicknamed "my little Mayflower" by her mother, which was shortened to May as she grew older. Michie states that "Mayflower" is derived from her birth month, May, 1867. By the time Michie wrotethe book (1952), only family initimates and certain aged contemporaries called her May. Her children called her Mama and other family members called her Granny. Strangers addressed her as "Your Majesty" the first time and thereafter as ma'am.

John Paul Parks (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

marriage

why was Mary married so late for her time? at 26 you were regarded as an old-maid??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.88.158 (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Alan Michie, "God Save the Queen," October 1952, Queen Victoria had marked her out as a future royal consort. She was initially engaged to Prince Albert Victor ("Eddie"), the eldest son of the future King Edward VII, but Eddie died, and then she was engaged, and then married, to George, the second son, who became King George V. All that matchmaking and rearranging takes time, I guess.

John Paul Parks (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't late [1]. 08:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.183.34 (talk)

According to Pope-Hennessey, her background made it difficult to find a suitable marriage. She was too royal to marry a commoner, but not royal enough to marry into the stricter German/European families. Because of her father's mognastic parents, she was only a Serene. Most of the German royal families would not accept that as possible marriage material. citation to follow. Tnorbraten (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)tnorbraten

marriage 2

she may have married late at 26, but still she became betrothed at 24 which was also regarded as very late. most girls were married by the time they were 20-21 or became known as "old maids". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.26.49 (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If she were marked out as a future royal consort, she would have to wait until Prince Albert Victor ("Eddie") proposed to her, and she would not be able to marry anyone while she waiting.

According to the PBS video, "The Windsors: A Royal Family," Eddie was "the elder, but far stupider," and seems to have been something of a playboy, so perhaps it took time to get him straightened out enough to propose. Then he died, and they had to wait a decent interval before the younger brother, George, could propose. The PBS video also mentions that the younger brother, George, was not good at expressing himself in words, and they wrote each other notes. A proposal probably takes awhile under those circumstances. John Paul Parks (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A better title for this article

I suggest "Queen Mary, consort of George V, King of Great Britain. Torontonian1 (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. First of all, the title you propose is invented. It would also be against conventions and against consistency in the Category:British royal consorts. Historians refer to her as Mary of Teck; that is the most common unambigious name for her in English. No historian calls her Queen Mary, consort of George V, King of Great Britain. Surtsicna (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Surtsicna. As far as I'm aware there was not another Mary of Teck. Furthermore, George V was king of the United Kingdom, not Great Britain. Deb (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There were several other people who could be called "Mary of Teck" - Queen Mary's mother, for one. Also two of her nieces. john k (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

His title changed in the middle of his reign, from K of the UK of GB & I to just K of GB & I. This officially took place in 1927, as a belated recognition of the fact that the UK of GB & I had ceased to exist at the end of 1921. It seems to be standard practice for such changes to be made oficially in arrears like that. Peter jackson (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Duke of Clarence was heir to the throne?

Really? I had thought that was his father. Surely there is some formulation which could be used which would be accurate without being awkward. john k (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, neither is strictly correct. There's an old Latin legal maxim, Nemo est haeres viventis, Nobody is the heir of a living person. His father was the heir apparent. The main body of the article uses the phrase "second in line", which seems to be a common enough usage. Peter jackson (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

?

I just noticed the beginning of the article reads, as of the current moment "Mary of I lost the game" but when I went to change it, the editing section still says "Mary of Teck". Anyone else see this/able to fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.134.51 (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Edward, son of Mary and George

I had suggested that the list of the children should have a paranthetical note that Edward was usually known in the family as David. I think this is helpful and should not have been removed. TV programmes and films often anachronistically use the name chosen by a ruler on accession as if it had been used in the royal family previously. Another glaring example is to suggest that the later King George VI was called George in the family. Prince George became Duke of Kent, and it was Prince Albert who became George VI. So, my suggestion is undo the deletion of "known in the family as David" in reference to Edward TonyAustria (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. It's unnecessary to confuse readers with the use of two names, one of which was only used within the family. To the public and formally, he was always Edward. With Albert, it makes sense to use the name because there was another brother called George, and some form of disambiguation is necessary. In addition, and in contrast to Edward, George VI was known formally and to the public as Albert before his accession. The films in which Mary appears as a character are listed in the Legacy section; there is one film where George VI is called Bertie in the title, whereas Edward is called Edward in both of the titles where his name features. DrKay (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I also disagree, but for another reason. That information should be in the article about the kids. It is not particularly usefull when reading on Mary. Dimadick (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Descent from Vlad the Impaler?

What about the information on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_the_Impaler#Genealogy that says that Vlad the Impaler is the ancestor of Mary of Teck?

King Charles also reiterated this publicly on a documentary.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.174.6 (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary of Teck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100122103842/http://www.stgeorges-windsor.org/about-st-georges/royal-connection/burial/burials-in-the-chapel-by-location.html to http://www.stgeorges-windsor.org/about-st-georges/royal-connection/burial/burials-in-the-chapel-by-location.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Boldface and italics

Richiepip, DrKay and I have removed the boldface and the italics because they defy common sense as well as guidelines. Please see MOS:ITALIC and MOS:BOLD. I have no idea where you think I referred to your contributions as unneccessary, but they certainly would be more useful if you took a moment to think whether something is actually useful instead of just appealing to tradition. Surtsicna (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Local consensus cannot override project-wide consensus. Project-wide it has been decided that emphasis should not be used in this way. There is an argument for showing the full style in italics per WP:WORDSASWORDS (such as, "she did not use that style, and was instead known as Her Majesty Queen Mary." or "Her style from 20 January 1936 was Her Majesty Queen Mary") as shown here[2]. DrKay (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

That's still a lot of italics. Don't you think quotation marks would be enough? Surtsicna (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I prefer italics to quotation marks, but ultimately neither are essential. DrKay (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I'd keep it as simple as possible. Surtsicna (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Death

The section "about" her death is not very relevant. The majority of the section, the first paragraph, is either fairly irrelevant or perhaps is intended to suggest suicide? What does her children's deaths have to do with hers? All we learn from the section is she died in her sleep at age 85. Certainly there was a cause of death; if it is public knowledge then it should be included here. Was she frail? bedridden? was she active, mobile, coherent? was she suffering from any chronic illnesses? etc.40.142.185.108 (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Edward's opinion of his mother in section on parenting

The section "Duchess of York (1893–1901)" contains these lines: "He expressed a less charitable view, however, in private letters to his wife after his mother's death: "My sadness was mixed with incredulity that any mother could have been so hard and cruel towards her eldest son for so many years and yet so demanding at the end without relenting a scrap. I'm afraid the fluids in her veins have always been as icy cold as they are now in death."

Two comments: -Does this assessment really belong in this section? Edward was only 7 years old in 1901. His description of his mother being hard and cruel for many years is in reference to her response to his marriage to Wallis Simpson and not to her treatment of him as a child. -Edward's view is clearly not unbiased; as his wiki page says, he was very bitter against his mother and family because of their disapproval of his marriage. If his view is included, surely there should be some comment on his resentment.

Ddeman (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we'd have to move the whole paragraph into the Legacy section as the first part of it was also written after his marriage (indeed, there's only 2 years separating the praise he wrote in his memoirs and the resentment in his letter). I think the paragraph fits naturally into the Legacy section too. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Queen consort: first to be born in Britain since Catherine Parr

The assertion in this article that Mary of Teck was the first Queen consort to be born in Britain since Catherine Parr is incorrect. Queen Anne (Anne Hyde, wife of James II) was born in Windsor in 1637. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.59.159 (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

She was never queen. DrKay (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Clash between this article and one on Duke of Clarence

One article says that he died before their wedding date was fixed; the other gives a date on which the wedding was to take place. They can't both be right. Pope-Hennessy's biography gives the 27 February date and says it was so the marriage could precede Lent.

Sbishop (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Sbishop

Good spot! I've removed the claim from this article because that was added since the featured article promotion and the source used is from 1953, whereas the source used on Clarence's article is from 1994. Modern sources have greater access to historical archives and are more representative of recent scholarship, and are therefore preferable to older, out-of-date works. DrKay (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Legacy section

Is it notable to add May Drive in Kings Park, Perth, WA as entry? Still finding source btw. Matthew hk (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2022

Would you make shorter description to "Queen consort of the United Kingdom from 1910 to 1936"? 2001:4452:490:6900:2D6E:BB69:9571:2188 (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)