Talk:Maria Feodorovna (Dagmar of Denmark)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Patronymic name[edit]

Why did she take the name Maria Fyodorovna when she moved to Russia? Her father's name was Christian, not Friedrich/Frederic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluefairy en (talk • contribs) 08:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Because a royal consort has no ordinal to distinguish them, once they are no longer the consort of a reigning monarch they are generally recorded in history books and on wiki by their pre-marital name. (eg, her sister is always described as Alexandra of Denmark, not Queen Alexandra. Similarly Alexandra of Denmark's daughter-in-law is known in history as Mary of Teck or May of Teck, not Queen Mary. Only national histories tend to use the consort name for their queens or princes consort. Wiki isn't a national history, it is a worldwide one so it follows world wide historical conventions, which are used in wiki's own naming conventions for consorts of monarchs. ÉÍREman 05:17 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

name[edit]

Her father became king of Denmark only after her marriage. At the time of her marriage, his father was HRH Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein-Sondenburg-Glucksburg, hereditary prince of Denmark (the last title, and HRH epithet granted by a recent Danish succession law settling the succession to him and the children of his marriage with Louise of Hesse after the possible extinction of the male line of the yet living Frederick VII and that of Frederick V). Thus, she was a Princess of S-H-S-Glucksburg and only after marriage, as soon as her father ascended, she received Denmark: she was then Maria, Grand Duchess of Russia, Princess of Denmark, etc. I think Denmark should not be used here as her pre-marital name, as it was not.

(The same actually is true to her sister Alexandra, Queen of United Kingdom.)

She was known with name Dagmar only a relative short period of her life, i.e only her youth (as Edward VIII was known as David when a boy and a teen). Most of her life she was known with the first of her christened names, i.e Maria. I believe she should be in Maria of Glucksburg or Maria of Denmark, or better, in Maria Fedorovna of Denmark or Maria Fedorovna of Glucksburg. 62.78.104.14 14:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  1. Her father became King in 1863, three years before her marriage.
  2. My understanding is still that Christian and his family were all made Princes of Denmark when Christian became heir in 1853(? or was it 1851?). Certainly, Alexandra was known as "Alexandra of Denmark" at the time of her marriage, even though her father had not (quite) yet succeeded at the time. For instance, the NY Times, not perfect, but available to me online, refers in her obituary to her arriving in England as "Princess Alexandra of Denmark." No mention of Glucksburg. john k 22:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
possibly in obituary, but please check the NYT marriage newspiece. At the time of death over half a century later, actual details from the time of marriage had apparently fuzzed, but! see also Talk:Alexandra of Denmark#Pre-marital name (which is of course the best place to talk about Alexandra's name, not here) 217.140.193.123 17:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT marriage stuff doesn't really help - it certainly doesn't call her "Princess Alexandra of Schleswig-Holstein" or anything like that. What would be needed would be a Court Circular or London Gazette entry, I think. john k 14:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is you who desires those, could you kindly check them from Court Circular and from London Gazette. 217.140.193.123 07:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMO those parenthetical disambiguations are messy. As this "Maria Fyodorovna (Dagmar of Denmark)" is already very close to Maria Fedorovna of Denmark, please move this to that heading. Unnecessary to use parentheses when one word, "Denmark", instead, makes the same. 217.140.193.123 16:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find the present title acceptable, and preferable to that suggested above by an anonymous user. Deb 17:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be returned to Dagmar of Denmark, the naming conventions are clear on the issue of former consorts--Mpokane 12:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since she converted to Orthodoxy prior to her marriage, this is technically her maiden name, but I get your point. The issue of Russian consorts is always a messy one, take a look at Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse (IMHO, a title I hate), but until there is a clear naming convention for Russian consorts, they are done on a case by case basis. Prsgoddess187 12:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Also, wasn't she known by the nickname Minnie?
The correct way for this title is "Dagmar of Denmark (Maria Fyodorovna)". Having her birth name in front and the name she accepted in Russia in parentheses. Popov 2000

Protected[edit]

As with Maud of Wales and Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna of Russia, this page has been protected due to an edit war. Please discuss and come to some sort of conlusion. Craigy (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reference specific articles on Haplogroup T (mtDNA) and Haplogroup H (mtDNA) which use the well known book The Seven Daughters of Eve by Bryan Sykes. The same Sykes who contacted research on the remains of the Romanovs in 1991. Tasc does not state any sources on his rejection of the addittion.

I incorporate text in the articles which was created by User:Saforrest back in February and has since been inserted to any number of articles on matrilinear relatives of both Nicholas II of Russia and Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse but was glaringly missing on the articles on the two main individuals.

I have tried to adress the matter in User talk:Tasc five days ago but other than some vague comment on it being "poorly written" he has really not made clear why he/she reacts so to the mere mention of a Genetics section in the article.

Examples of articles which do include the section and Tasc has never complained about include among others:

Anne de Foix.

As far as I can see it has not diminished the worth of these articles but has made them better linked to one another. I could care less if I am personally banned but I would like to see these articles stay in good shape and not suffer in quality due to the likes of Tasc. User:Dimadick

"The likes of tasc" made themself clear immense number of times. If you want to add this info, add it to see also section! Article is only corrupted by your changes. -- tasc talkdeeds 11:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having recently read the Wiki articles on the halogroups, Sykes' work and where the Romanovs and their descendants and ancestors fit in, it certainly does seem appealing to those who are interested in DNA etc. and I'd disagree with any bad reviews, as it was/is clearly a much thought-out academic study.

However, I'd have to agree that a section in most of the articles above (and more) about the individual's halogroup would seem very out of place and absolutely irrelevant as a section within the article, which it clearly doesn't deserve. In my opinion, it would be like going around every building and place featured in the Da Vinci Code and adding: "so-and-so was featured in the Da Vinci Code." As it seems to be agreed on by most, the details of Sykes' work would be an interesting section in the article on Nicholas II (and possibly his wife and children) and it would be nice to see it there (if only as a slight reference) but nowhere else. As a compromise, I would suggest adding "Category:Members of Halogroup n where appropriate." Also, sources aren't needed for a reversion; no-one is disagreeing with the fact that a is part of hologroup n, merely with the fact that it's irrevelant on-the-whole to that particular article (the same goes for the recent additions of Greek Dysporia or whatever it's called). Craigy (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the The Da Vinci Code, remember that we have sections on popular culture references and the Code is currently mentioned in articles so diverse as Claude Debussy, Leonardo da Vinci, Mary Magdalene, Pope Joan, Bruce Schneier, Arcadia, Timothy Freke, Lincoln Cathedral, Opus Dei, King's College London, Black Legend, Pentagram, Phillips Exeter Academy and Nicholas Flamel. So I fail to see what excactly is your point here.

I am not certain about what Tasc thinks but User:Astrotrain does consider it unreferenced and was the first to call it "nonsense" to my knowledge. So I think references are important here. Second the articles as they currently stand point out that somebody is a member of this and that haplogroup because a specific ancestor or descedant is known to be also. A category does not allow for this. Plus a category that isn't mentioned in the main text of an article and does not show its references would end up in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion before its first week was over.

By the way the term is Greek diaspora but what recent additions do you mean? I haven't worked in relative articles in quite a while. User:Dimadick

Stricly speaking, a piece of information about a person (whose biography is at hand) is not to be put into that article if no reliable publication has published that piece mentioning the person in question. A series of edits here according to genealogy, making own deductions based on who are matrilineal ancestresses of certain persons, is more like original research than reporting what is already published. Has that been the reason for those edits? Henq 08:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more original research that a "connect the dots" exercise. User:Dimadick

Interwiki pl[edit]

pl:Maria Fiodorowna Romanowa Bocianski 09:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove protection?[edit]

This page has now been protected for three weeks. I have not seen any discussion on the issues in the article in the last two weeks. Unless there are objections, I am going to request unprotection. Calwatch 23:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fact and fiction[edit]

"According to the fictional film The Mystery of Anna, Anna Anderson was on her way to see the Empress but this is widely believed to be false". Erm, that's why the film is "fictional"! Fiction generally is false. I've not zapped the section though as I imagine there's a more serious point trying to escape. --kingboyk 11:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this more serious point comes from the supporters of Anderson who would like to imagine the Empress as having some concern for the issue and possibly even countenancing the idea that this was her granddaughter - that and the imagination of the script writer. Hallworc (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In real life Anna told people that she was in Berlin to see her "Aunt" Irene (Alexandra's sister) who was married to Kaiser William II's brother Henry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Autocrat as a title?[edit]

...the last Russian monarch, the autocrat Emperor Nicholas II, ... I don't think that autocrat should be used as a title for N2. Of course, his official title was Николай Александрович, император и самодержец всероссийский, etc. and literally this means Nicholas, the All-Russian Emperor and Autocrat, but article Autocrat don't mention this word as a part of the title of the Russian Emperors. IMHO, it's like naming George W. Bush as head of republican state, the President of the USA G.W. Bush. Moreover, the word autocrat in this title is often regarded to have few sense. I seems strange to name Elizabeth II as a Defender of Faith, Queen of the UK Elizabeth II.--87.251.146.107 15:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --kingboyk 15:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Autocrat formed part of the style of the Russian Emperors. The primary, short titles were Tsar and Emperor of Russia. Charles 21:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fallen diplomat event[edit]

I dopn't really see why some people mind this being mentioned so much: it is a factual event, it was covered by world media and it is a quaint and interesting thing to mention in ana article like this. Ok, maybe it doesn't need most of the space in the reburial section but I really think it is a bit weird not to include it at all, it's the kind of event about which people will ask whether it actually happened twenty years from now. As for the picture it is an official press photo published numerous times in many world media and it reflects a recent event, if we can't claim fairuse for it then we can't for the other burial photos either.Maunus 12:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page uses two images taken by Wikipedians, so no problem there. The image of the diplomat is covered by copyright. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Anderson[edit]

What does she have to do with anything? Why should there be a section about her? Why should most of that section be about the discovery of the bodies of the imperial family? I've commented it out, and I think it should be deleted unless someone can explain why it belongs here. john k (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It surely belongs here because those who support the Anderson Theory use the bodies as evidence to her claim. If it was indeed her Dagmar was her last surviving relative and so best placed to judge the issue —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallworc (talk • contribs) 12:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war about pseudorelative in Georgia[edit]

I think the page requires decision about pseudorelative in Georgia and needs protection because I am sure georgean editor will not be able to understand argumentation and which is more - he (she) misuse Wikipedia having some personal interest in adding irrelevant information (e.g. being a relative to Sharip and trying to show connection to Maria Fedorovna).

Is it possible to get protection first, then a discussion about the edits can be done. That way it does not keep going back and forth, and we can get some closure on the topic.Millertime246 (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tags added[edit]

Dagmar is a great subject, but the article is atrocious, filled with purple prose, POV and unsourced assertions too numerous to list here. The few things I just corrected are just the tip of the iceberg. For example, whoever captioned the photo I corrected is obviously more interested in writing a romantic biography than an accurate encyclopedic article. Please remove speculation about how people thought or felt and your own speculations about events, and stick only to the facts you can cite. Assertions cannot be your own. If you don't wish to do this, then I'll do the cleanup myself, which means gutting the thing. J M Rice (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 February 2015[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Already moved back to original title. The proposed target, Maria Feodorovna (Dagmar of Denmark) was the long term home of this article, until it was boldly moved and that move later reverted. This move request, to move from the newer title back to the older one, was started before it was reverted, and it hence irrelevant now. If anybody wishes to gather opinions on the option of moving back to Maria Fyodorovna (Dagmar of Denmark), they should open a new move request to that effect. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Maria Fyodorovna (Dagmar of Denmark) → Maria Feodorovna (Dagmar of Denmark) – Feodorovna is the common name for the patronymic: compare 2000 gbook hits for "Maria Fyodorovna" with 7000 for "Marie Feodorovna" and over 12,000 for "Maria Feodorovna". See the VIAF links, none of which use a y. It is also consistent with Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix of Hesse). DrKay (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose It leads people to say the name incorrectly and add an extra syllable. Alexandra "Feodorovna" needs to be corrected too. See the guidelines on preferred transliteration in Project Russia. And by the way, didn't you just hours ago revert my move "Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna of Russia" to "Grand Duchess Ksenia Alexandrovna of Russia" and imply it doesn't matter what VIAF has because, quote, "'this is the english wikipedia not the german or dutch one"? Oh that's right, you did! :-D Wikimandia (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are 16,000 gbook hits for "Grand Duchess Xenia" and only 36 for "Grand Duchess Ksenia". The common name in English in that case is very clear. DrKay (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Date she became grand duchess differs[edit]

"Dagmar converted to Orthodoxy on 24 October [O.S. 12 October] 1866 and became Grand Duchess Maria Feodorovna of Russia the following day." This statement contradicts what the Titles and Styles section at the bottom of the page says. 76.202.192.102 (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that section. It was unverified and added by a LTA sock puppet IP. DrKay (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1866 Miscarriage[edit]

The Tsarevna section asserts that she had a miscarriage in 1866 while horseback riding in Denmark. Given that she had only been married in October 1866 in Russia, this gives rise to the question of when precisely she had the miscarriage and how it happened in Denmark. If it had happened before her marriage, that would have been distinctly scandalous, assuming she was expected to be a virgin when she married Alexander. If it happened after her marriage, the scandalous aspect disappears, assuming the fetus was clearly very immature, but her trip back to her homeland seems awfully quick having just been married. Foreign-born royals could spend many years in their new country before returning to their homelands yet she was back just weeks after the marriage. Does anyone have more detail on this matter? Is it possible the year 1866 is a simple typo? Perhaps the author of this sentence meant a different year? Rhino (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not cited, so I've removed it. DrKay (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maria_Feodorovna_(Dagmar_of_Denmark)&oldid=1207066689"