Talk:Josephine of Leuchtenberg
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Josephine's relation to old Danish Kings
[edit]Christian I of Denmark 1426-1481 | +----------------------+---------------------------------+ | | John (Hans) of Denmark | 1455-1513 | | | +-----------------------+---------------+ Frederick I of Denmark | | 1471-1533 Christian II of Denmark Elizabeth of Denmark | 1481-1559 1485-1555 | | | | | | | | Joachim II, Elector of Brandenburg Christian III of Denmark | 1505-1571 1503-1559 | | | Christina of Denmark John George, Elector of Brandenburg | 1522-1590 1525-1598 Anna of Denmark | | 1532-1585 Renata of Lorraine | | 1544-1602 | | | | Christian I, Elector of Saxony | | 1560-1591 | | | | Magdalene of Brandenburg John George I, Elector of Saxony Magdalene of Bavaria 1582-1616 1585-1656 1587-1628 | | | George II, Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt Sophia Eleonore of Saxony | 1605-1661 1609-1671 | | | | +----------------------+---------------- + Philipp Wilhelm, Elector Palatine | 1615-1690 Elizabeth Amalie of Hesse-Darmstadt | 1635-1709 | | +---------------------------+----------------------------------+ | Karl III Philip, Elector Palatine 1661-1742 | Elizabeth Augusta of Palatine-Neuburg 1693-1728 | Maria Francisca of Palatine-Sulzbach 1724-1794 | Maximilian I of Bavaria 1756-1825 | Augusta of Bavaria 1788-1851 | Josephine of Leuchtenberg 1807-1876
(I will continue working on this tree, trying to find the link from Christian II to Maximilian I).
King Maximilian I of Bavaria is, through some women, descended from William V of Bavaria and his wife Renata. If I remember correctly a check I long ago made, it was through their daughter Magdalena, palatiness of Neuburg. ObRoy 11:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is through Magdalena. Charles III Philip's (above) father was Philip William of Neuburg, whose mother was Magdalena of bavaria, daughter of Renata, whose mother Christina was Chtistian II's daughter. Only a couple of new names to above table, and then the lineage is fully clear. ObRoy 12:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's better, now all the persons on the "mysterious" link are in Wikipedia! --Astor Piazzolla 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
They are actually "old Swedish kings" and "old Norwegian kings" when Josephine is in question, because her connection to denmark is not so important, whereas her (a queen of Sweden and Norway) to those of Sweden and Norway is a promnent issue. ObRoy 15:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
[edit]This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Why always the photo of her as Dowager in the infobox?
[edit]Several times, people have moved the image of her as an old Dowager Queen and placed it as the articles main image in the the info-box. Perhaps because that is a photo and not a painting? I think this is wrong. She had her greatest relevance as a Queen. Furthermore, the infobox also, in fact, has "Queen" as a title. Therefore, I think, it is more appropriate to have the image of her as a Queen in the infobox. --85.226.44.238 (talk) 10:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have now replaced the photograph of her as a dowager with an official portrait of her as a queen in the infobox of her as a queen. --85.226.44.238 (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Her dynasty
[edit]Josephine's bio is currently categorized as if she belonged to two different, unrelated houses (not branches of the same dynasty, as some people do). I am not aware that anyone can - that women join new dynasties when they marry. Would like to go by Debrett's and Burke's on this and revert again, unless anyone objects. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- We treat dynasties as regular families. She joins her husband's family at the occassion of her marriage. Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Never seen that anywhere else - in any other literature I mean. Families yes, dynasties no. Where does that WP policy come from? Can't we adhere to what is normal to avoid confusion? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The queen's diary quoted?
[edit]One might assume this undiscussed reversal and its edit comment mean that Queen Josephine's diary has been published and quoted, so that all that tabloid-type gossip about her true feelings could be confirmed thus as factual. Of course that is not the case; not one of us knows an iota about her feelings in regard to her husband's "adultery" (quote the WP editor, not anybody's diary or other source). Too much of this kind of tendentious material has been added and is added to certain biographical articles. Here and here are two examples of many. I am willing to list more and launch a proper investigation in to the behavior of the editor, whose good faith does not show through in reversals like this, unless such personal and often detrimentally exaggerated interpretation of reliable sources stops. I'm rmg it again here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (royalty) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (royalty) articles
- Royalty work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
- Start-Class Norway articles
- Unknown-importance Norway articles
- WikiProject Norway articles
- C-Class Sweden articles
- Mid-importance Sweden articles
- All WikiProject Sweden pages
- C-Class Italy articles
- Mid-importance Italy articles
- All WikiProject Italy pages
- C-Class Women's History articles
- Mid-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles