Talk:Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll

"Queen of Argyll" Song Inspiration

Does anyone know if she inspired this song? --Ryan W (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Missing History

At the end of this very informative article is a list of Canadian Regiments that still bear the name of Princess Louise.

Unfortunately however there is no mention of the British Regiments that fought in both the first and second world wars, and indeed 41 (Princess Louise of Kensington) Signal Squadron which still operates today within 31 Signal Regiment, and which has a significant role in UK Operations.

Would someone please research this and amend the article?

Many thanks.

An update to her military appointments, it is mentioned that she gave her name to 8th Canadian Hussars (Princess Louise's) but is not listed; ...permission was sought to include her name in the Regiment’s title. Princess Louise consented and in July 1884, the Regiment was redesignated the 8th Princess Louise’s New Brunswick Regiment of Cavalry. In 1889, the Regiment was officially classified as "Hussars" in the Militia List and in 1892 the Regiment was again redesignated the 8th Princess Louise’s New Brunswick Hussars, a title which remained until 1957. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.209 (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Princess Louise vs. Albert Lacombe

According to historian Elie Auclair, Alberta was named in honor of missionary Albert Lacombe. Why is Princess Louise usually credited with the origin of the name ?

The Marquis of Lorne's correspondence and memoirs make it clear that he named Alberta after his wife: http://www.assembly.ab.ca/lao/library/louise/conclu.htm Indefatigable 15:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This is silly....

Surely saying that she was the most attractive of her sisters is a little POV? Just going on the photos that are currently on the pages, I would definitely have said Victoria. But perhaps a better picture could be found. On the other hand, if she was generally considered the most attractive of the sisters at the time and this is of any importance, someone should add a reference. 91.105.5.19 13:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

She was greatly admired by her contemporaries as the most beautiful and flirtatious of all of her sisters. There are many sources for this, but this is one that I have to hand: "...she was the queen's [Victoria's] most beautiful daughter..." (Mark Stocker, ‘Louise, Princess, duchess of Argyll (1848–1939)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, May 2006 accessed 25 Dec 2007). I've therefore changed "least unattractive" to "most attractive". I will also try and get a clearer photo uploaded. PeterSymonds | talk 07:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Time in Canada

I've removed from the opening paragraph the line about her 'evincing considerable boredom'. This is adequately and appropriately referenced in the section dealing with her time in Canada and does not belong to the general brief introduction to her - to have that statement there makes out it was her singular and most important attribute. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, good move. Not appropriate for such a short lead. PeterSymonds | talk 15:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

princess louise, duchess of argyll 70.237.239.56 (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 366 metres, use 366 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 366 metres.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• The script has spotted the following contractions: wouldn't, won't, can't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

commoner marriages

No British princess had married a commoner since Mary Tudor married Charles Brandon, the first Duke of Suffolk, in 1515.

Charles was made a duke before that marriage. Or does "commoner" here mean "non-royal"? —Tamfang (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Commoner in this case means non royal (see mediatization). Commoner doesn't technically mean a peer, though I've used it to distinguish between noble and royal blood. PeterSymonds | talk 08:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The linked article commoner begins "In British law, a commoner is someone who is neither the Sovereign nor a peer." jnestorius^(talk) 09:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

All biographies state that Louise was the first daughter of a Sovereign to marry a commoner. An example: "The queen claimed that the marriage was ‘the most popular act of my reign’ (Fulford, 305) and the press generally hailed it for striking a ‘democratic’ note, Louise being the first daughter of a sovereign since 1515 to marry a commoner." from the Oxford DNB article. The ODNB is an extremely authoritative source; I doubt they'd use the word "commoner" incorrectly. PeterSymonds | talk 10:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If the word "commoner" is being used here in a different sense from that of the Wikipedia article, then at a minimum this article should not wikilink to that article, which is as wrong as linking Mickey Mouse to Pluto instead of to Pluto, and a good deal less obvious. Even better would be to amend that article to take account of the variety of meanings of "commoner". jnestorius^(talk) 10:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Bringing up mediatization in a non-German context invites confusion. —Tamfang (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

German Mediatization has its separate article, though. The noun has the same meaning, whatever nationality you are, so it would mean the same outside German context. PeterSymonds | talk 23:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point. I've unlinked commoner for now. PeterSymonds | talk 16:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not linked :) PeterSymonds | talk 16:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No? It was linked on DYK. Oh well. jnestorius^(talk) 16:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is the understanding of the actual word and how it's used. Technically, on thought, the ODNB is technically wrong in stating that she was the first daughter of the British Sovereign to marry a commoner, because Charles Brandon was Duke of Suffolk – of noble rank, and therefore not a commoner by definition. I've found another way to say it. No such marriage had been given official recognition since 1515, when Charles Brandon, the first Duke of Suffolk, married Mary Tudor. Would this be suitable as a replacement? PeterSymonds | talk 17:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I replaced it anyway :) PeterSymonds | talk 20:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think use of the term non-royal may be more helpful. The article is technically correct because you are a commoner if you are not a peer. Although he was called Lord Lorne, technically it was his father's title that he used as a courtesy title, and so he was not a peer in his own right, but a commoner - until the death of his father. In the UK, nobles are legally commoners unless they are peers in their own right.

I would speculate that Charles Brandon, the first Duke of Suffolk was probably not yet the Duke of Suffolk when he married Mary Tudor, hence his description as a commoner. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Henry VIII created Brandon Duke of Suffolk in 1514. He married Mary in 1515. ScarletRibbons (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Protect it?

I have seen this page be vandalized many times since it has been posted as a FA. Maybe someone should protect it. kkarma 05:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think it's necessary. The TFA always gets vandalised more than often than other articles, and looking at the history, the vandalism doesn't seem to be too bad at the moment. PeterSymonds | talk 07:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Street names

Many of the streets in Brandon, Manitoba are named after people who were involved in the building of the Canadian Pacific railroad. Two of the downtown streets are Princess Avenue and Louise Avenue. They are on either side of Lorne Avenue, so Lord Lorne is surrounded by his wife. 216.36.132.66 (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a number of things named after Louise, especially in Canada. I like the confluence of streets, though, very interesting; but I can't find a reference to back up the name. Thanks! PeterSymonds | talk 16:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Princess Louisa Inlet

Was this princess ever referred to as Louisa? There is a lovely inlet on the BC coast called Princess Louisa Inlet that may have been named after this lady or her grandmother. Many adjoining geographic features are named for children of Queen Victoria. --KenWalker | Talk 01:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

She was christened Louisa Caroline Alberta but was always known as Louise. However, her grandmother was Princess Victoria Mary Louisa, so it is unclear who the inlet was actually named after.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The first princess+commoner marriage?

"No such marriage, between a daughter of a Sovereign and a British subject, had been given official recognition since 1515, when Charles Brandon, the first Duke of Suffolk, married Mary Tudor."

There are at least three problems with this statement:

1. Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk, was certainly not a British subject, as he died long before the Kingdom of Great Britain came to exist.
2. Queen Mary I of Scotland, a daughter of a Sovereign, married two 'British' subjects, in 1565 and in 1567 respectively.
3. According to Sophia Naturalization Act 1705, many (if not most) daughters of Sovereigns actually married British subjects. Surtsicna (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunate lack of candor with regard to Lord Lorne

Lord Lorne was a noted homosexual - I find it odd that this article merely refers to "rumours". Particularly since Princess Louise's search for sexual fulfilment outside her marriage is given so much space, it would be appropriate, and indeed necessary, that Lord Lorne's homosexuality be explicated rather more frankly and completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.94.152 (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Princess Louise, use of word "feminist" and her name

Hi. When you say that Princess Louise was a supporter of the feminist movement, this is kind of anachronistic, since feminism wasn't really even a term at that point, and the suffragist movements and the several feminist movements haven't all been identical or even had exactly the same aims. I am willing to track down exactly which version of suffragism she involved herself with if you like, or perhaps this is already something you are on top of? Your page is so good, I didn't want to go in and just change things, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Sharon Scogdill (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you make a more specific suggestion here of what change you think should be made, so that the article's editors can discuss it and possibly incorporate it into the article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, in the intro the article says she was born Louise but she was christened Louisa, which the article confirms later. Is this a subtle distinction? or really we should say she was christened Louisa rather than that she was born Louise? Sharon Scogdill (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Since she was known as Louise throughout her life, the christening name is probably not important enough to go in the WP:LEAD section (Lead sections should be succinct) and is properly treated below, in the "Early life" section. That's only my opinion, though. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Further source

This article by Carolyn Harris might have information of use here: March 7, 2014 The Whig.com [1] --KenWalker | Talk 05:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw a docu on TV last night, Victoria and her daughters, which offers more insight. It seems to have had consent from the Royal family as access to some very Royal looking real estate would indicate. 58.174.224.23 (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-sequitur?

The lede says: 'She was also a supporter of the feminist movement, corresponded with Josephine Butler and visited Elizabeth Garrett. She held that "the subject of Domestic Economy lies at the root of the – highest life of every true woman."

The quotation doesn't sound very feminist, rather the opposite. I don't see how it supports the preceding statement. It is also not represented in the main article, so shouldn't be in the lede at all. Valetude (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Louise fell in love with John, Marquess of Lorne,

This also is silly. It is evident from cources cited in th emost recent bigoraphy of Princess Louise ("The Mystery of Princess Louise: Queen Victoria's Rebellious Daughter by Lucinda Hawksley") that the marriage was a effectively one of convenience on both sides, although the public were encouraged to believe it was a love match.JF42 (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

In the docu 'Queen Victoria's daughters' it is said that Louise was very pretty and attracted to a sculptor. This led to the marriage being arranged to prevent ... whatever you may call it. It was also said that Louise had some windows of Kensington Palace bricked up because her husband would get out at night and seek gay adventures. The docu makers had access to the Queen's archives. 58.174.193.2 (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Lucinda Hawksley biography

This article needs to be updated to mention the Hawksley biography, which is quite incendiary. The section above hints at the great variation between this biography (which mentions 2 or 3 previous biographies of the princess, while we refer in Wikipedia's voice to Wake as her biographer as if hers is the only one) and the statements made in the article. Hawksley is almost definite that Lorne was gay and on p. 301 outright calls Henry Locock the princess's son. On less scandalous matters, too, Wikipedia is saying things that Hawksley convincingly demonstrates were otherwise: she repeatedly returned to Europe to escape the Canadian winter rather than having become used to it, and in her last 20 years of life, when not ill, she continued to have a heavy schedule of public appearances; she was never a shut-in or a recluse. The article has become outdated and needs to at least acknowledge this new portrait. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll. 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/20130523041453/http://www.inveraray-castle.com/inveraray-castle-first-floor.html to http://www.inveraray-castle.com/inveraray-castle-first-floor.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120311014923/http://www.albertacentennial.ca/history/viewpost.aspx~id%3D249.html to http://www.albertacentennial.ca/history/viewpost.aspx~id%3D249.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Sculptures

I was disappointed that only one of the citations (the bust of Louise's brother, Leopold) led me to a photo so that I could see more of her work, other than the famous & oft-photographed Queen Victoria sculpture at KP. Judging by that statue alone, Louise seemed to be an extremely talented artist, so I was hoping to see other works of art she had done. Alas. Would someone know where & could add directions to Louise's works? TYVM in advance if anyone can. ScarletRibbons (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 24 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Based on comments here and at Talk:Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone#Requested move 23 January 2023 (permalink), there may need to be a broader discussion on the naming conventions. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll → Princess Louise of the United Kingdom – Most articles about deceased princess of the royal blood seem to be titled based on how they were known at birth, as is the case with Louise's sisters Victoria, Princess Royal, Princess Helena of the United Kingdom, and Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom. I see no reason why Louise should be an exception. She is already the primary topic for the proposed rename, so there is not risk of confusion. Estar8806 (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is less uniform than you think. Peruse the list of British princesses and you'll notice that there are as many as 3 different standards for princesses in similar situations and from the same time period. This particular case if much closer to what the modern standard is and it's much more accurate than some other titles. Revisiting one would invite a revisit to many other titles or even standards so it's best to leave it alone. --Killuminator (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Killuminator I looked through the list of British princesses since 1714 and only 4 (apart from those living) seemed to have any differentiation from the standard title at birth. They were:

  • Princess Mary, Duchess of Gloucester and Edinburgh;
  • Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll;
  • Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone;
  • Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon.

  The only other difference between titles was derived from WP:NCROY, used for the consorts of sovereigns in {Name} of {Place} format (such as Louise of Great Britain. Estar8806 (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Estar8806: There are other names that can be added to that list.

  Louise, Princess Royal, who was born Princess Louise of Wales

  Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood, who was born Princess Mary of York

  And I'm not even counting the living princesses. This alone demonstrates that there is not a clear pattern and we should probably go with WP:COMMONNAME, which is the safest option. It should also be noted that the reason some pages are at the subject's birth name is because the married name has been less commonly used. For example, Princess Charlotte of Wales (1796–1817) is rarely referred to as "Princess Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld". Same with Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom, who was technically "Princess Henry of Battenberg". Keivan.f^Talk 22:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Keivan.f Those are different. I should have been more clear. Princess Louise and Princess Mary were Princesses Royal in their own right. Princess Louise was not created Duchess of Argyll, but married the Duke of Argyll. Alice wasn't Countess of Athlone by right, but by marriage to the Earl of Athlone. Same for Princess Margaret and Princess Mary.

  And the examples you cited of Charlotte and Beatrice are actually perfect examples of what I'm suggesting, titling them based on what they were known as at birth, or at least a title they didn't hold by marriage to someone else. Estar8806 (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yet Princess Mary was not created Countess of Harewood at birth. Obviously that is there to distinguish her from Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange, but still in both cases they are titles not bestowed upon them at birth. And to elaborate on what I was saying before about Charlotte, my point is that in those cases it is unreasonable to have the page titled after an obscure title such as "Princess Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld", no matter how formal or official it might be. That is not really the case for Princess Louise or Princess Alice though, because the inclusion of their titles does not omit their Christian names. I also wonder what other users think. It's better to have different perspectives. Keivan.f^Talk 23:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Your point is very fair and understandable. I also agree with your point to avoid obscurity, however I would point out that comparing the notability of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld to the UK. As you said, Mary's designation as Countess of Harewood is to distinguish her to from the other Princess Royal by the name Mary. That is also why I didn't propose an RM on Princess Mary, Duchess of Gloucester and Edinburgh because "Princess Mary of Great Britain/the United Kingdom" could be any of the three.

  Just for the record (in case this comes up later) both of the proposed RMs are primary are already primary topics. Estar8806 (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.