Talk:Battenberg family

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is this[edit]

the town from which the name Mountbatten in the British royal family derives? -- Jmabel 22:43, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)


Yes, it is.

What??[edit]

No mention of the pink and yellow sponge cakes with marzipan icing! I'm shocked and appalled! --Kiand 22:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


I read somewhere in Wikipedia[edit]

that it was decreed in 1960 that the surname Mountbatten will in future generations be incorporated into the cadet branches of the British Royal Family; the descendants of Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth would therefore have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. Is that correct?Cosal 00:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A *German* noble family?[edit]

This may be obvious to everyone but me... however, I read the whole article trying in vain to find out WHERE these lovely princes & princesses were FROM!! Is there some good reason why it doesn't say anywhere that this is a German noble family? I know - it does say "of Hesse," but that only helps if you know where Hesse is, which I didn't until I followed the link. On the disambiguation page it gives that information, but it would seem logical to me to have it in the article itself! (Please forgive my parochialism - my European geography is *quite* rusty!) --Mpwrmnt 07:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to start an argument here -- but many of the so-called "noble" families of Europe do not fit neatly into any nationality box, since they all married (may be not always happily) across state and ethnic lines for dynastic reasons, to secure a possible future inheritance, to seal a peace treaty, to obtain a good dowry, etc. Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany, for instance, was a grandson of Queen Victoria and a first cousin of the Tsar, and the British royal family received lots of "infusions" of "German" blood ever since the Hanoverians assumed the throne in London. Cosal 00:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Lady Grania Mary Mountbatten[edit]

Does anyone know who this individual is who is on Facebook? From what I can tell, it seems she is pretending to be a descentant of Lady Iris Mountbatten, daughter of the Marquess of Carisbrooke. Missionconsort (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone has already done research on this individual: http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/search?q=Grania 69.157.25.223 (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was No move; rename category instead (I'll submit it to a bot). Duja

Considering[edit]

that both the category and the template use the form House of Battenberg, wouldn't it be appropriate for the article to use the same? -- Jao 19:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Support - I support this one considering the other "houses" including House of Bourbon and such. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Support for House of Battenberg. Cosal 23:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Support While most families that have reigned have Wiki articles under "House of", so many noble -- and even a few non-noble -- families that have never reigned also have articles and/or categories listed as the "House of". We don't seem to have a clear pattern, let alone a rule, restricting that usage to sovereign dynasties. Examples include the non-sovereign Houses of: Beauharnais, Borgia, Camondo, Czartoryski, Gontaut, Hohenberg, Kinsky, Koháry, Laborde de Monpezat, Merode, Montmorency, Noailles, Ranjina, Sorgo/Sorkočević, Torlonia, Vasaborg, WrangelYusopov, etc. Among this list, certainly the Battenbergs warrant designation as a "House". If, OTOH, all of these families are to be "demoted" to families, it would make more sense to leave the Battenbergs as a "mere" family. Lethiere 00:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Lethiere lists eighteen articles or categories about families where they are called "House of ..." What he doesn't point out (perhaps he didn't know) is that ten of these articles/categories were renamed to "House of ..." in the last five months (most by the same editor). An additional two pages were created within the last five months. It is most distressing to me that a small number of editors wish to use Wikipedia to CHANGE SCHOLARSHIP. Once this change in scholarship is accepted on one page, the pattern is transferred to other pages by other editors who are not aware of the circumstances. I can only hope that Lethiere will withdraw his vote based on this information. Noel S McFerran 00:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted my "Support" vote, above: I did not realize that there was a silent campaign underway to re-name non-dynastic families as if they were dynasties without regard to prevalent scholarship or WP's naming conventions. Nonetheless, I don't add my vote to the "Oppose" column, because there are still too many families out there named "House of..." which are less "dynastic" than the Battenbergs and should not be left there if this vote fails. Nor could I find a rule on this usage at Naming conventions. Lethiere 04:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose "House of Battenberg" is not common English usage. Google Books shows 25 hits for "House of Battenberg", but 166 hits for "Battenberg family". It is not appropriate for Wikipedia to change the way scholarship generally refers to a particular subject. We're not here to "tidy up" the fact that scholarship is sometimes inconsistent. Noel S McFerran 14:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why it is recommended that this principle be adhered to here, but not, for instance, in the article name for Alfonso, Duke of Anjou and Cádiz, a largely Wiki-created & sustained title rarely used elsewhere? Lethiere 21:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems peculiar to question here the title of a totally different article which has never been discussed. I have now begun a discussion in the appropriate place. Noel S McFerran 23:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You are right, and I apologize for raising it in the "wrong" place. But the point struck me as peculiar because of an emerging pattern: when "consistency in Wikipedia" supports a desired change it is used as an argument, yet when "Wikipedia is not consistent" supports a desired change that is cited as an argument. You alone have been consistent about including the context "Wikipedia is not consistent, it reflects prevalent scholarship", and I agree that position is coherent and appropriate. But that context has been dropped (not by you) in other royalty-related discussions when prevalent scholarship doesn't substantiate a desired outcome; then, "Wikipedia is not consistent" gets used as a defense in response to the challenge, "But you are arguing here in contradiction to the same principle you espoused in a similar case there. Alfonso, Duke of Anjou and Cádiz seemed an obvious case (that happened to occur to me: dozens of others could just as well be cited) to affirm the principle "Wikipedia is not consistent, it reflects prevalent scholarship". Lethiere 16:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose The Battenbergs in and of themselves were not a "House" in the traditional sense. Charles 14:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Noel and Charles, will you then be prepared to support a move of Category:House of Battenberg and a change in the Template:S-hou application in the members' articles? I don't really care much which way this goes as long as the inconsistency is ended. I also do see the point in not using "House" for this particular family. -- Jao 14:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Reply I will support a change of the category name, etc. The house parameter is a little more problematic. I can arguably see it used for members of the family who married sovereigns or became a sovereign (eg, the prince of Bulgaria), but for all over intents and purposes this is simply a noble family. In the templates itself, it doesn't automatically say "House of Battenberg". It could very well just say "Battenberg family". The name of the template is only very minor. Charles 15:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. I think that "Category:House of Battenberg" should be moved to "Category:Battenberg family". Noel S McFerran 16:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Support move to House of Battenberg - dwc lr 23:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

what about von?[edit]

For reasons known only to the writers,the Names have all been anglicized as: of Hartenau versus von Hartenau. I suggest that they be corrected. No doubt,the same drift of mind would have de become of in the Romance names. This is unacceptable,in my opinion.AptitudeDesign (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hartenau is the (geographical) name, not von Hartenau. What's von Hartenau in German becomes of Hartenau in English, just like the King of Sweden isn't called the King av Sverige here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battenberg family. 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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 01:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)