Talk:Marie of Romania/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

moving

It was requested that Princess Marie of Edinburgh be moved to Marie of Edinburgh. Per Wiki naming conventions of former queens consort, this should be the title's name.Mowens35 19:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The word "princess" should be soonest taken away from the name of the article. Such are utterly impractical and ridiculous. It is quite clear that such are put as articles by some royal-romantics who should not be allowed to decide anything here, since they would fill the place with royalist litter... 62.78.104.14 16:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• complete nonsense. She was a Princess, so why not name it that way? Masako, Crown Princess of Japan is also not listed as Masako of Japan. voting against move Antares911 16:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The difference is "Crown Princess" is not a title, its a position. Masako would be listed as Princess Masako, Crown Princess of Japan under the system currently used on this page. -- Tomhab 18:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Antares, with all due respect, I have read your edits and your suggestions here in Wikipedia, and my conclusion is that very much you have uttered is complete nonsense. Of course very few take you any longer seriously. As your complete nonsensicality comes from your apparent sycophancy, it is really expected that you want to preserve all that royal litter in everywhere. Is your next move to have HRH Princess Marie of Edinburgh.

Re Masako, she should be rather Masako, Crown Princess of Japan 217.140.193.123 20:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support the requested move. The naming convention regarding this question is clear and accepted, and only some lone (loony?) debater attempted to change it some two months ago, being practically shouted down by more experienced editors. Queen consorts do NOT have the "princess" title in their headings, and so this one will also not have it. Arrigo 09:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I can see both sides of the story here, but I think some of the above posts are very venemous and bitchy and too many personal points of view are taking precedence over a balanced compromise - eg someone shouldnt be making personal comments to another user about their other postings, thats quite irrelevant. I know there are a lot of royalists here but there are also a lot of ANTI-royalists here too, and I don't favour either of them, I think we should strive to be historically correct. I have a Macmillan encyclopedia and that lists princes and princesses as such with the word "prince/ess" in the heading. It should be noted that-

• Queens consort have different naming conventions to princes and princesses as they acquired their rank by marriage not by birth, and they lack ordinals to identify them, but that doesnt change the fact they were queens. Look at present princes and princesses too - Princess Beatrice is not referred to as "Beatrice of York".
• HRH shouldnt be used for dead people, except to point out historically what they were addressed as
• Marie was a princess - it's a fact, so even if this isn't in the heading, it should definitely be in the opening paragraph. Putting the word princess in the title would make it easier certainly for researchers to identify her as a grandchild of Victoria, and also that she was a member of the Royal Family. And also all other prince/sses are referred to as such historically and in the present.

No Royalist or Anti-Royalist views should be put here. This is an encyclopedia, not a bitching forum.

My own vote is against the recent move, because historically it makes more sense to refer to her as what she was - a princess. Like it or not, it's an historical fact. However, I'm open to both sides of the argument.jayboy2005 29 Aug 2005

Sheesh. she was historically a Queen. Queens are not lowered to princesses after their deaths, they remain queens. Arrigo 01:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

No, queens arent reverted to princesses after their deaths, but they are referred to by their maiden status. That's Done Here, you may argue, but I think you'll find that queen consorts when describing where they were FROM (e.g. Alexandra of Denmark, May of Teck, Katharine of Aragon) have their territorial designation as the sovereign state NOT as individual cities as is done here. And also all of Marie's cousins here on wikipedia (Beatrice of Edinburgh, Alistair of Connaught etc etc the list goes on) have the title princess, so it appears this is the only anomoly. (jayboy2005 02 Sep 2005

I agree with the move. Marie's title after her marriage and her husband's accession to the throne supersede her title as princess of Romania. As a former Queen she should be known by her maiden title but with the style of a Queen. Therefore I am in favour of a move to Marie of Edinburgh. Also I believe it is pointless to compare her to princesses and crown princesses. As crown princess Marie would have been styled Marie, Crown Princess of Romania. Maybe a compromise would be to have a section on styles and titles from birth under the proposed title.

You're right on what you suggested but the title is wrong. Queens consort are identified by the kingdom or state from which they came - Katharine of ARAGON (kingdom), Alexandra of HESSE (sovereign duchy), Henrietta Maria of FRANCE (kingdom) etc, i.e. the territorial designation was the principal territory over which their family reigned. Edinburgh was indeed reigned over by the British monarch but under the UNITED KINGOM. So, it's probably best to call her PRINCESS MARIE OF EDINBURGH (as are all her cousins) or MARIE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. After all, Edinburgh isn't a sovereign duchy, just a titular one.--Jayboy2005 16:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I see where you’re coming from, but not all Queen Consorts are known by sovereign titles. Mary of Teck was a princess in the Kingdom of Württemberg which was a courtesy title similar to that of princess of Edinburgh in the UK. There are other exceptions also such as Catherine and Marie De Medici who were known by their surname not "of Florence". Does anyone know how Marie was known during her lifetime in Romania? This might prove useful to know. All this raises an interesting point regarding current and future Queen Consorts who are not aristocratic or from sovereign families. How will they be known in future? In Spain I assume Sophia will be know as Sophia of Greece in future, but how will her daughter in law be known? Anyway I am still in favour of the move. --62.6.139.11 10:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It would be useful to know what she was referred to as Queen - I'm thinking it wouldn't be Edinburgh as it was a new dukedom - but then, so was Teck! I agree it's difficult to know how to title queen consorts - in fact any prince or princess here is difficult to determine, they seem to be listed differently here. I've noticed it's often foreign (i.e. foreign to Britain) consorts that are known as simply "Mary of Teck" etc, whereas for our native prince/sses we seem to be giving them a bit more royal status. If we change Marie shouldn't we also change all of her Edinburgh, Albany etc cousins?

By the way, I appreciate this being a rational conversation and not the unnecessary and childish bitching this conv started with! I think maybe Marie of Edinburgh WOULD be better but definitely refer to her as a princess in the opening paragraph, and also to alter her cousins etc so they appear the same way.

How about Marie of Edinburgh, Queen of Romania as a title? How do people feel about that? I agree that the maiden title needs to be referred to but I also feel it is inappropriate to add princess as this title was superseded by her title of queen. Using previous examples, other Queen Consorts are not referred with their maiden princely or ducal titles, just the territorial designation. Alexandra of Denmark is not Princess Alexandra of Denmark and Anne of Cleves is not known as Duchess Anne of Cleves. Any feedback would be welcomed.--62.6.139.11 13:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that would be better - it would follow precedent of "Victoria, Princess Royal & Empress Friedrich".

I just noticed the title of this article, and it bothers me. Victoria, Princess Royal and Empress Frederick is titled like that to disambiguate it from other Princess Victoria's (and there have been a few). This does not conform to the naming conventions. Can you imagine if we did this to all the queen consorts, Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg would become Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg, Queen of Spain; Mary of Teck would become Mary of Teck, Queen of the United Kingdom. It would be a mess. I think this should be moved back to Marie of Edinburgh, to keep her in line with her cousins (who also became queens) and with the naming conventions. Any ideas/comments?Prsgoddess187 11:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, neither of those served an important political function in their roles as queens consort in their adopted countries. Marie functioned as a diplomat and played a significant role in Romanian politics (some would say that she ultimately played more of a role than her husband, the king). So I think this may be a case for an exception. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just moved the article back to Marie of Edinburgh as it made me cringe when I saw the title. I agree with Prs' point that others would need to add 'Queen of Nonsuch' at the end to fall in line with other pages and the Empress Frederick is just a disambiguation. Although she married the Crown Prince a few months before her father succeeded as Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, would Marie then become Marie of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha when he did succeed? Can anyone verify? Craigy (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that if she was unmarried, she would have been "Princess Marie of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and of Edinburgh". But since she became Crown Princess of Romania before that, her per-married title was Princess Marie of Edinburgh. It is the same fight with Maud of the United Kingdom, she had married Prince Carl of Denmark prior to her father becoming King, so her pre-married title should be Maud of Wales.Prsgoddess187 19:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this title. I had suggested Marie of Edinburgh, Queen of Romania as a compromise, but I agree Marie of Edinburgh is the correct title. --Mpokane 15:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

i think that a person should be put here under the name or in the quality which made him/her most famous. you have an article on marilyn monroe, not norma jean baker, etc. marie was best known as queen of romania, this title should at least be mentioned in the article title. ilya 20:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why in the blazes would I type or even know to type "Marie of Edinburgh" into the search if I am looking for info about Marie of Rumania? How was I even to know that when "Marie of Edinburgh" was returned, it was nothing more than a non-match? I finally found the article on Marie of Rumania in Wikipedia by going through GOOGLE. Wikipedia's naming conventions for royalty are absurd.

   Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
   A medley of extemporanea;
   And love is a thing that can never go wrong,
   And I am Marie of Edinburgh.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.234.32.85 (talk • contribs) 7 August 2006.

surnames in children!!!!

There is no sense in putting "Hohenzollern" everywhere to litter this page. Her children were "of Romania", and any such does not need repetition. 62.78.104.14 16:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the children were born hohenzollern. they became 'of romania' in the first world war when king ferdinand turned against germany and was declared a traitor by kaiser william and by his own family. ilya 08:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong on both counts. Royals do not have surnames. The Royal House did indeed have a name-Hohenzollern (NOT the same thing as a surname, btw), which was indeed changed to 'Romania'; but this was not done until 2012.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Marriage between first cousins...

I have removed the blurb about the Duchess of Edinburgh disapproving of marriage between first cousins. She brought her children up to be "good little Germans" and didn't approve of marriage to George of Wales because she deeply disliked her husband's family. It makes no sense to say she was against marriages between first cousins; Marie's sister Victoria Melita married her first cousin, a match that their mother encouraged because he was German.

true, the problem was not the blood relationship between the two. i don't think marie of coburg encouraged the marriage of victoria with ernst, i think she was indifferent to it, and the fact that queen victoria insisted on it as a compensation for the missy marriage was what made it happen. the marriage was queen victoria's doing, not marie's.

Bahai??

The romour that HRH converted to Bahai is wishfull thinking on behalf of Bahai believers. She was buried in the Orthodox chapel which would not have been possible if she was in fact a Christian apostate. Do correct it! -- unsigned by 80.60.113.240

She was a Baha'i, and so was her daughter. There is recorded evidence of this, since she declared it publicly and wrote numerous letters to Shoghi Effendi recording it. This is not debatable. Cuñado - Talk 23:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are some excerpts from the Toronto Daily Star on May 4, 1926 during Queen Marie's visit to that city. The article clearly shows that she was a Baha'i.

Indeed a great light came to me with the message of Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá. It came as all great messages come at an hour of dire grief and inner conflict and distress, so the seed sank deeply.'

My youngest daughter finds also great strength and comfort in the teachings of the beloved masters.

We pass on the message from month to month and all those we give it to see a light suddenly lighting before them and much that was obscure and perplexing becomes simple, luminous and full of hope as never before.

That my open letter was balm to those suffering for the cause is indeed a great happiness to me, and I take it as a sign that God accepted my humble tribute.

The occasion given me to be able to express myself publicly, was also His Work -- for indeed it was a chain of circumstances of which each link led me unwittingly one step further, till suddenly all was clear before my eyes and I understood why it had been.

Thus does He lead us finally to our ultimate destiny.

Some of those of my caste wonder at and disapprove my courage to step forward pronouncing words not habitual for Crowned Heads to pronounce, but I advance by an inner urge I cannot resist. With bowed head I recognize that I too am but an instrument in greater Hands and rejoice in the knowledge.

-- Jeff3000 00:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

She might have shared some sympathy for the movement. She died as an Eastren Orthodox believer and was buried as such - there was not even a word of talk of her having a Bahai funeral. Her youngest daughter BTW became later an Orthodox nun.

I thinkt that all that might be said is that she held sympathy for that movemnet - that I don't doubt - but remained herself officialy Eastern Orthodox till death -- unsigned by 130.37.120.109

Actually, she stated many times that she was a Baha'i and it was only through pressure from the surrounding authorities that she did not proclaim it more, and was not permitted to have a Baha'i funeral. Here are some of her writings to many people that show that she was a Baha'i and show the difficulties she had with the people around her

• God is all. Everything. He is the power behind all beings... His is the voice within us that shows us good and evil. But mostly we ignore or misunderstand this voice. Therefore, did He choose His Elect to come down amongst us upon earth to make clear His Word, His real meaning. Therefore the Prophets; therefore Christ, Muhammad, Bahá'u'lláh, for man needs from time to time a voice upon earth to bring God to him, to sharpen the realization of the existence of the true God. Those voices sent to us had to become flesh, so that with our earthly ears we should be able to hear and understand.

• Lately a great hope has come to me from one 'Abdu'l-Bahá. I have found in His and His Father, Bahá'u'lláh's Message of faith, all my yearning for real religion satisfied ...What I mean: these Books have strengthened me beyond belief, and I am now ready to die any day full of hope. But I pray God not to take me away yet, for I still have a lot of work to do.

• The Bahá'í teaching brings peace and understanding. It is like a wide embrace gathering all those who have long searched for words of hope... Saddened by the continual strife amongst believers of many confessions and wearied of their intolerance towards each other, I discovered in the Bahá'í teaching the real spirit of Christ so often denied and misunderstood.

• The Bahá'í teaching brings peace to the soul and hope to the heart. To those in search of assurance the words of the Father are as a fountain in the desert after long wandering.

• It was indeed nice to hear from you, and to think that you are of all things living near Haifa and are, as I am, a follower of the Bahá'í teachings. It interests me that you are living in that special house... I was so intensely interested and studied each photo intently. It must be a lovely place ... and the house you live in, so incredibly attractive and made precious by its associations with the Man we all venerate.

Also in the course of a visit to the Near East she was supposed to go visit the Bahá'í Shrines in Palestine, accompanied by her youngest daughter, but she was denied to right to make the pilgrimmage due to the people around her, She wrote in June 1931

• Both Ileana and I were cruelly disappointed at having been prevented going to the holy shrines and of meeting Shoghi Effendi, but at that time were going through a cruel crisis and every movement I made was being turned against me and being politically exploited in an unkind way. It caused me a good deal of suffering and curtailed my liberty most unkindly. There are periods however when one must submit to persecution, nevertheless, however high-hearted one may be, it ever again fills one with pained astonishment when people are mean and spiteful. I had my child to defend at that time; she was going through a bitter experience and so I could not stand up and defy the world. But the beauty of truth remains and I cling to it through all the vicissitudes of a life become rather sad ... I am glad to hear that your traveling has been so fruitful and I wish you continual success knowing what a beautiful message you are carrying from land to land.

On January 1, 1934 she wrote to Martha Root with something to be published in the journal "The Baha'i World" and added

• Will this do for Vol. V? The difficulty is to not repeat myself.

This last two quotes point at the constant pressure on the Queen, which Martha Root commented about, from both ecclesiastical and political factions to keep silent about a religion her open sponsorship of which they heartily disapproved of.

Before her death she wrote:

• More than ever today, when the world is facing such a crisis of bewilderment and unrest, must we stand firm in Faith seeking that which binds together instead of tearing asunder. To those searching for light, the Bahá'í teachings offer a star which will lead them to deeper understanding, to assurance, peace and goodwill with all men.

In 1938 when Queen Marie passed away a message of condolence was communicated to her daughter in the name of the Baha'i community, and her daughter wrote back, "sincere thanks to all of Bahá'u'lláh's followers." -- Jeff3000 17:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I fear the problem here is that Baha'is (who seem to control all the pages mentioning them) seek to push a more or less 'official' view of things. Marie did not fit into the current Baha'i concept of membership and belief. Many people in that period (including many well-off 'seekers after the truth') dabbled in Baha'i much as they dabbled in any exotic religion or cult they came across. I don't doubt that Marie held Baha'ism in high esteem, but I'm not convinced she had a very clear idea of what it was. She doesn't mention it in her memoirs, and after her death Ileana denied flat out that she had been a Baha'i. She was quite a strange, egotistical woman and would, I believe, have been better described as a sort of 'universalist'. All her comments are pretty much the norm for this sort of eccentric who would doubtless have embraced the Unification Church or something similar had she lived till then. It would be much more accurate to describe her as an 'admirer' of Baha'ism rather than a formal member. User: Denis MacEoin

Poor balance

Only one sentence in this article would give you a clue of the level of importance of this non-regnant queen: "After the war ended, she represented Romania at Versailles, gaining back territory lost by Romania during the war."

Marie was a pretty powerful figure. By most accounts, she was far more on top of things politically in Romania than her husband, the king, and Barbu Ştirbey, who is mentioned in passing as her "lover" was a major figure among Romanias landed aristocracy. But you'd never get that from this article as it stands. Nor would you know that she was involved in the arts well beyond the usual patronage expected of a monarch: she did most of the decoration of the Pelişor Palace herself.

But from this article as it stands, you'd largely see her as a princess traded to maintain dynastic arrangements. The entire 2-paragraph lead section is about parentage, baptism, marriage prospects. Surely we would never do this with a male of comparable historic importance.

Yes, I will eventually get to this if no one else does, but that could well be months away. If anyone else would like to try to put this in order, I'd appreciate it. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at this, using material from A.L. Easterman's book on Carol II written during World War II. Doubtless, though, there is a good biography of Marie herself out there somewhere. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

there are many biographies on queen marie... the most famous (and in my opinion the best) is hannah pakula's 'the last romantic'. also queen marie published her memoires, called 'the story of my life'. you did a very good job at updating, though, congratulations. ilya 08:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the Pakula book, but of course I should have thought of her memoir. I've never actually read it, but certainly knew it existed.

I think I did a fair job of pointing up her political importance. I'd still like to get more in here about (1) the fact that politically she was rather allied to the boyars, and (2) her inclinations toward the arts. She was something of a patroness of the arts, and also a moderately talented decorative artist herself (she did most of the interior decoration of Pelişor). If someone has some decent sources on either front, I'd like to get that into the article. Also, I gather that some letters of hers (I don't think it is in her memoir) make clear her level of contempt for her husband. That would be worth citing if someone has access to the relevant material. - Jmabel | Talk 05:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

i'm kind of in a busy period now, but when i get some time i'll reread her memoires to search for the things you mentioned... ilya

Paternity of Children

Where is the basis that some of her children are listed under different fathers or have uncertain paternity? I know that it is in all likelyhood that Prince Mircea was the child of Barbu Stirbey, but is there any basis in fact that three of her other children, Marie, Nicholas and Ileana were 100% not Ferdinand's biological children? At any rate, Prince Nicholas's physical characteristics were very Hohenzollern, including the hawkish nose that Ferdinand also possessed. I don't think we should list any of the children, with the exception of Mircea, as being sired by anyone else until there is some sort of evidence to the contrary. Morhange 23:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, where is the source for this statement: Also, Queen Marie has herself written that Princess Marie was sired by Grand Duke Boris Vladimirovich of Russia. ? Morhange 23:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Check "Born to Rule" for this.67.169.204.187 (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Russophile

I don't know about this in detail (I didn't write that passage), and I don't know a thing about the Russian Grand Duke. If someone wants to follow this up from primary sources, I'd go after either her correspondence with Loie Fuller (I'm not sure if much of that survives and is published; I know that the bulk of it was apparently seized by Romanian agents when Fuller died) or possibly her memoir. - Jmabel | Talk 00:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Marie admitted that one child was from Vladimirovich. Ileana was highly likely of Stirbey, as not only physical similarity but also alienation from Ferdinand. Lastly, Mircea is even more obvious thant Ileana (who is fairly obvious already).

The lack of scientific approach comes from those who falsely believe in the purity of royalty rather than the open-eyed persons who can see (with documentation in many cases) the lives these human beings of privilege led. They aren't angels, just people. They had all kinds of lovers, some of whom fathered/birthed children.

Biological paternity should be irrelevant for the table. The text can talk about the questionable biological paternity of Marie, Ileana, and Mircea, but legally all of them were Ferdinand's children, and every reputable genealogical source in existence lists them as such. john k 07:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I edited the text. It was suggesting that all of Marie's children had dubious paternity. Mircea was very probably Barbu's and we will never know about Ileana. About Mignon and Nicholas there were rumours, but there is absolutely nothing to prove them one way or the other and they will always be a heated point of discussion (especially Mignon). But suggesting that Carol and Elisabeth were also not Ferdinand's is utter bull. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilyawh (talk • contribs) 20:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that Mignon and Nicholas both had the hooked nose and protuberant eyes that not only Ferdinand I had, but Carol II and Elisabeth also had; I think it's more than obvious they were Ferdinand I's biological children (and its particularly striking if you compare pictures of Nicolas and Ferdinand I). As regards Ileana and Mircea, meh. The whole point is pretty irrelevant anyway. They were all Ferdinand I's children in the eyes of the law and as regards the succession (were Mircea to have lived), and anyone can say 'so-and-so is not the father of X child'-at the end of the day; we should be putting facts in here (that, to all intents and purposes, all of Marie's children were also Ferdinand's) rather than gossip and rumour. This is an encyclopaedia, not the National Enquirer or the Sun newspaper.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Medal Image

Would someone with a much better understanding of scaling down image sizes please fix this. I tried to lower the size of the medal image, but it won't work: Image:Medal - Marie of Romania.jpg Morhange 14:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why you want to size it down; it can be resized to any size in a page by typeing out:

[[Image:Medal - Marie_of_Romania.jpg|thumb|<size>px|<caption>]]

where <size> and <caption> should be filled in. Regards, -- Jeff3000 14:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Category

Why the removal from Category:British royalty? The edit summary just says "cat tidy"; offhand, I don't see any other category here that implies that she was British royalty, so I'd expect it to be included. - Jmabel | Talk 17:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Never mind, spotted it, Category:English and British princesses. - Jmabel | Talk 17:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Bahai

This section is way long, and I assume was written by, well, Bahais with an agenda to push. Can someone who is not a Bahai confirm that this stuff is actually true? And might we condense? john k 16:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

See my comments higher up, under the other 'Baha'i' section. The Baha'is appear to have an official or semi-official editorial board that takes care to strip pages about them of anything they don't approve of. Does Wikipedia have a means of preventing this? User: Denis Macoin

There are many secondary reliable sources that indicate that she was a Baha'i. First of all there is a whole book dedicated to the relationship Marcus, Della (2000). Her Eternal Crown: Queen Marie and the Baha'i Faith. Oxford: George Ronald. ISBN 0853984425. Furthermore, from Pakula (1985). The last romantic : a biography of Queen Marie of Roumania. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. pp. pg. 337. ISBN 0297785982. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Text "Hannah" ignored (help) it is written:

"In the desperation and near loss of faith that followed, Queen Marie turned to the teachings of the Bahá'í religion, which she discovered a month or so after Carol's flight. The Bahá'í call for the unification of humanity under one faith was vastly appealing to the Queen, who had always rebelled against the rigid distinctions separating her immediate family into three religions, and the Bahá'í goal of universal peace and its warnings of social upheaval seemed prophetic to the distraught woman..."

Add to the secondary sources there are also many primary sources. The Toronto Daily Star on May 4, 1926 published the following quote from Queen Marie:

Indeed a great light came to me with the message of Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá. It came as all great messages come at an hour of dire grief and inner conflict and distress, so the seed sank deeply.

My youngest daughter finds also great strength and comfort in the teachings of the beloved masters.

We pass on the message from month to month and all those we give it to see a light suddenly lighting before them and much that was obscure and perplexing becomes simple, luminous and full of hope as never before.

That my open letter was balm to those suffering for the cause is indeed a great happiness to me, and I take it as a sign that God accepted my humble tribute.

The occasion given me to be able to express myself publicly, was also His Work -- for indeed it was a chain of circumstances of which each link led me unwittingly one step further, till suddenly all was clear before my eyes and I understood why it had been.

Thus does He lead us finally to our ultimate destiny.

Some of those of my caste wonder at and disapprove my courage to step forward pronouncing words not habitual for Crowned Heads to pronounce, but I advance by an inner urge I cannot resist. With bowed head I recognize that I too am but an instrument in greater Hands and rejoice in the knowledge.

And she also wrote to a childhood friend of hers stating:

"It was indeed nice to hear from you, and to think that you are of all things living near Haifa and are, as I am, a follower of the Bahá'í teachings. It interests me that you are living in that special house... I was so intensely interested and studied each photo intently. It must be a lovely place ... and the house you live in, so incredibly attractive and made precious by its associations with the Man we all venerate." (emphasis added)

There are enough references to back up the statments in the text. Regards, -- Jeff3000 00:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice discussion. A follower of Jesus is by definition a Christian, and a follower of the Baha'i teachings is a Baha'i. But if you want stronger wording, the book by Della Marcus clearly states that she was a Baha'i. Regards, -- Jeff3000 12:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Could use a bibliography

She was a much-published writer, which the article barely alludes to. It could use a "selected works" section. - Jmabel | Talk 06:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Of Edinburgh?

I'm pretty sure she's best known as "Marie of Rumania" or "Marie of Romania." Why is she called by her English/Scottish title instead?--T. Anthony (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

References

Among the references must be her "The Story of My Life" by Marie Queen of Roumania (NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1934). She says in the Forward that this is the story of her life which she had often been asked to write. Since she styles herself Marie Queen of Roumania in this book, I believe that that should be the title of this Wikipedia article. I may add that this book is over 600 pages long and the book jacket gushes that "The story of her life embraces nearly half a century of some of the most momentous years in history...Here is the intimate self-revelation of a woman and a queen--a glimpse behind the scenes afforded by one who has been a leading player in the great drama of our times. rumjal 05:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

Death of Queen Marie

The Gold Room in Pelisor Castle is designated as the location of Queen Marie's death (visitor's guide). Pelisor is within walking disatance of Peles Castle but is a distinct building. The location given in the entry should be changed to Pelisor in place of Peles. 82.78.24.250 (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Easterman reference

The in-line reference merely stated Easterman 1942. Does this relate to
Alexander Levvey Easterman (1942). King Carol, Hitler and Lupescu. London: V. Gollancz ltd. OCLC: 66795406.? Finavon (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the Parker poem truly a parody?

The page says that she was famously "parodied" in Dorothy Parker's short poem "Comment." I'm no Parker scholar, but I never read that as a parody, but rather as a closing absurdity that leads the reader to go back and construe the previous assertions in a sarcastic mode (because they are equally true.) I won't edit this before leaving a decent interval, but if it is a parody I hope that someone provides some evidence for that, as the notion that the poem is actually written in first-person from Marie's perspective is not the natural reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Major Danby (talk • contribs) 03:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If this has not been done, I shall alter to mentioned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Twas, but Parker's spelling was Roumania; Romania is an anachronism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed 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 moved to Marie of Romania. On reading the discussion below, I focused on the following: There is support that Marie of Romania (or Roumania) is the commonish way of referring to the lady in English; there seems to be evidence that a guildeline that the maiden name of the consort should be used is not consistently followed; and there seems to be some confusion between the two queens, mother and daughter. Given these three factors, the title Marie of Romania seemed to be the logical one. I'm going to restrict this conclusion to this article only and leave the other Maria to other requests. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Marie of Edinburgh → Queen Marie of Romania — Or some variation thereon. But it seems that these women are far better known and recognized as queens of their adopted countries than as princesses of their native ones. They are apparently at their present titles only because of the application of the would-be "maiden name" rule for consorts, which no longer has support (see WP:NCROY#Consorts). Kotniski (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Maria of Romania → Queen Maria of Yugoslavia

Tentative support I would actually support a move along these lines, although not necessarily to these precise titles. However I suggest that it would be better if this discussion continued further at WP:NCROY instead of diving into individual page moves. PatGallacher (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Where do you think such discussion would lead? It would only make sense if it were to lead to some kind of general rule; at the moment everyone seems agreed that no such rule is workable (so we may as well just get the individual articles right).--Kotniski (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have just made a fairly lengthy posting on this issue at WP:NCROY. However if we are to move a significant number of articles for these reasons it would help if we clarified if the format ought to be "Queen Maria of Yugoslavia" or "Maria, Queen of Yugoslavia" or just "Maria of Yugoslavia". Also, did the queen of Romania reign as "Marie" or "Maria". A number of Romanian institutions named after her call her "Regina Maria", but Dorothy Parker called her "Marie". PatGallacher (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Romanian language Wikipedia calls her "Maria a României", the French calls her "Marie de Saxe-Coburg-Gotha", the Spanish and Italian have similar names, and the German calls her "Maria von Edinburgh". PatGallacher (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose this move, because I heard of her as Marie of Edinburgh long before I heard of her by the title you are proposing. Deb (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose on the basis that the titular Queen is not necessary for identification and contrary to WP:NCROY.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you oppose "Marie of Romania" then? PatGallacher (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

what data do you have on common name. If you can show Marie of Romania is more common, then yes I would support.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say that I would support moving this page to Marie of Romania but then I remembered that we would have to change many links (since Marie of Romania is how we currently refer to her daughter). I am against using the title of queen in the article title. Surtsicna (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have just done a search for "marie of romania"-wikipedia and it's clear that the majority of articles found refer to the queen, not the princess her daughter. It has around ten times more hits than "marie of edinburgh"-wikipedia. There are similar findings with all four combinations using "maria" and "rumania". Dorothy Parker's poem does not appear to be a large influence. Having to change internal links is a weak objection. PatGallacher (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Who said it was an objection? It is a concern. Besides, if we have so many articles that link to a wrong person, we have a bigger problem, don't we?

Anyway, I prefer Marie of Romania over Queen Marie of Romania. However, Marie of Romania might be too similar to her daughter's name. Moreover, is her daughter really known as Maria of Yugoslavia? If she isn't, one might wonder why the wife of Alexander is called Maria of Yugoslavia, while the wife of his successor is called Alexandra of Greece and Denmark - i.e. we would create unnecessary inconsistency. Perhaps Maria of Romania, Queen of Yugoslavia would be better, if she isn't known as Maria of Yugoslavia? Surtsicna (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking into this further and doing a few google searches, there is a tenable case for moving the next Yugoslave queen to "(Queen) Alexandra of Yugoslavia", some reliable sources do call her that, including the only important newspaper obituary I have found (from The Independent). "Alexandra of Yugoslavia" is unambiguous, "Alexandra of Greece and Dewnmark" is not. A possible counter-argument might be that her reign as queen of Yugoslavia is really just nominal, since she only married Peter II in 1944 when he was already in exile and he was deposed soon after, this issue should be considered on its merits. The only other Yugoslav king, Peter I, came to the throne as a widower. PatGallacher (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Living in a former Yugoslav republic, I can confirm that the only Queen of Yugoslavia known as such is Maria of Romania (daughter of the Marie of Romania). But that is irrelevant if Queen Alexandra is known as Queen of Yugoslavia to the English-speaking people. Surtsicna (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain why "Queen" should be omitted from the title? To a newcomer, this looks like an irrational superstition (which in this case will do actual harm if followed, since addition of "Queen" is the most natural way to distinguish one Marie of Romania from her daughter).--Kotniski (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it is not scholarly usage to refer to consorts in this way. It would be a bit like filing titles under "The". Deb (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Google Scholar would imply the reverse ("Queen Marie of Romania" accounts for the majority of "Marie of Romania" hits, and "Marie of Edinburgh" is much rarer). The sources listed in the article also include "Queen" in their titles more often than not. So I think this probably is a superstition.--Kotniski (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The word "queen" should be omitted from the title because it doesn't make sense to have articles titled Ferdinand of Romania and Queen Marie of Romania. Why should the title of the article about her include "Queen" while the title of the article about him doesn't include "king"? Anyway, I'm curious: what kind of superstition are you referring to? Surtsicna (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we would expect or even necessarily want consistency between a king and his consort (we certainly don't have it at the moment). But the omission of "King" from article titles like his is another example of what I perceive to be the same superstition. Under the proposal I've tentatively made at WT:NCROY, he would be "Ferdinand, King of Romania" and she "Queen Marie of Romania".--Kotniski (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

We would most certainly need consistency in such cases or at least a rational explanation for inconsistency. Having articles titled Ferdinand of Romania and Queen Marie of Romania makes a person wonder who was the monarch and who was the consort. Marie of Romania would be best, if that's how she is known. Why "Ferdinand, King of Romania" and "Queen Marie of Romania" instead of "King Ferdinand of Romania" and "Queen Marie of Romania" or "Ferdinand, King of Romania" and "Marie, Queen of Romania"? Surtsicna (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Some people think we should title regnant monarchs differently from consorts, to distinguish one from the other. --Kotniski (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Marie of Romania is usage; Parker is one of many who use it (I set aside the minor problem that the customary spelling of Roumania has changed since the First World War; we should not worry about such changes any more than we use Engelond.) Queen is unnecessary and unidiomatic; in Wikipedia, it is also unsystematic. Why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It would serve to distinguish mother from daughter. But if we're sure that the mother is the primary topic for the phrase "M of R", then we can do without the Q. (But like others, you're just wrong in saying that Queen here is unidiomatic - my Google Scholar search showed far more instances with it than without it. Dorothy Parker isn't the only person who's made reference to this woman.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Might be convinced to accept Marie of Romania if it is accepted that she is more commonly associated with Romania than Edinburgh. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Consider this listing of her books at the Library of Congress (which does also show that her publisher used "Queen"
  • And look for Story of naughty Kildeen (which I choose for uniqueness) on Google Books; 116 hits with Roumania; 16 hits with Romania; 5 hits (two of those apparently spurious) with Edinburgh. The woman did manage to have a career as well as a marriage (just as well, considering the quality of the marriage), and she did so under her married name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So we seem to be nearing towards a conclusion; she should certainly be under Romania rather than Edinburgh - is everyone agreed that we should use the modern spelling rather than Roumania? In that case it seems that we can use Marie of Romania, Queen Marie of Romania or Marie, Queen of Romania (or possibly some other suggestion). Without resorting to falsehoods or wiki-superstition, does anyone have any arguments as to why we should prefer the less common and potentially ambiguous form without "Queen"? (And what about the Yugoslavian queen - what are we going to call her?)--Kotniski (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, as spouses of monarchs go by their family title. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? You really think this woman should be called Edinburgh? What evidence do you have that she went by her family title (and even if she did, why should we follow it when usage is now obviously different)?--Kotniski (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that not how past royal consorts are named on Wikipedia? GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes, and sometimes not. Usage outside Wikipedia varies; see Elizabeth of Bohemia, who was a Stuart, not a Czech. Often usage is divided, as with Margaret of Burgundy, who is also Margaret of York. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

My consistancy empire is crumbling around me. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment If we'd let the Bolsheviks just get on with it and shot the whole bloody lot, we wouldn't have these interminable debates about what to call various two-bit royals! Skinsmoke (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons stated by GoodDay. Dimadick (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

But GoodDay's reason has just been refuted!! Is there any point in this mode of discussion, where people just come along and write "oppose" in bold letters, followed by nonsense? Theoretically the closing admin should disregard such comments, but in practice they won't, it will be closed as "no consensus" because that's easiest, and the article will remain at the same wrong title, to the detriment of the encyclopedia.--Kotniski (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Reasons for having queens consort in their pre-marital names without any titles are the needs of systematics. And usually, history writing uses those when enough time has lapsed. It is generally the custom which means least partiality between countries involved, they often having sharply contrasting names to supply to the same person. Marrtel (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the name "Marie of Edinburgh", or other title/names, could still be in the article even if changed.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't need "systematics", particularly when we use a completely different system for people who happen not to be consorts (we give them the name by which they are best known). And normally we deal with the sensitivities of different nations etc. by simply saying that we do what English does (Falklands, for example). Arbitrarily adopting different standards for a particular set of articles is being inconsistent.--Kotniski (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support or for "Marie of Romania" I'd never heard her called "Marie of Edinburgh" until I came to Wikipedia. Doing a Google Scholar search "Marie of Romania", in quotes is much more common than "Marie of Edinburgh" in quotes. Marie of Romania vs Marie of Edinburgh In the Google news archive "Marie of Romania"[1] is far more common than "Marie of Edinburgh."[2] So I thought it was the more common name before and I guess I still would.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support for Marie of Romania, or similar variant. As for her daughter, Maria, that should be dealt with following a move here to reflect her association as Queen consort of Yugoslavia. Dr. Dan (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Suggestion I sense a consensus developing in favour of "Marie of Romania". Does this require a fresh move request, or could it be dealt with by this request? PatGallacher (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wrote "or some variation thereon" in my proposal, so I think it's covered. But we'd need a title for the other queen as well. (And still no-one's given a reason why we shouldn't disambiguate them - and follow common name at the same time - by prefixing "Queen").--Kotniski (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Support - what about something like Marie, Queen Consort of Romania if it's important to show her status as consort, especially if Queen consort is the applicable, though I don't see her listed there (but I'm also not sure it's considered an exhaustive list.) Personally I've not seen Edinburgh used in anything I've read about her. At a simpler level I'd support just "Marie, Queen of Romania". Smkolins (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment I also just noticed every current one listed as a queen consort has her article name as Queen x of y - on the other hand almost all ones that are listed from the past are "name" of "region". Smkolins (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose Queens consort are known not by regnal name but by maiden title, to distinguish them from Queens Regnant who are known by regnal name. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What?? Have you read what's written above? This woman is much better known by her regnal name than her maiden title. Do you have some counter-evidence? If not, I think this comment (like other similar ones) should be ignored.--Kotniski (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, we are no longer enforcing that as a universal rule. After it produced Alix of Hesse for the Empress Alexandra, no one felt like supporting it in every instance. So this is the beginning of the discussion, not the end: is there reason, on this article, to use the maiden name? Consistency is no argument where it will never exist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Why did you bring up Alix of Hesse for the Empress Alexandra when your're talking about the rule about consorts and their maiden name not applying? The article is title Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix of Hesse) with the maiden name cleary shown, and that's because she changed her name and religion upon marriage to Nicholas II of Russia. If we were to break from the universal law in Wikipedia about the naming of consorts, then other moves will happen and, it'll be confusing. It doesn't really matter what the title is, if the intro clearly state who she was in life.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't have a universal law; the naming of tsarinas is a rule unto itself, only tolerated because nobody has been able to think of anything better. If we did use the maiden-name rule, we would be using Alix of Hesse - at which point our gorges revolted. For another example, see Marie Antoinette - not Maria Antonia of Austria. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:37, 15 May 2010 (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.

Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Would Marie have dropped the titles of Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Duchess of Saxony in 1917 when the rest of the British royal family dropped them? Or because she was a member of a different royal family, would she have kept them? Prsgoddess187 02:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No, she already dropped all her titles British and Saxon when she became Queen of Romania in 1914. There would never be an situtation in which she would use her pre-marital title when she becomes Crown Princess of Romania and later Queen of Romania; if she had visited Britain or Germany, she would be referred to as Her Majest the Queen of Romania.

Do you have a source that she dropped her non-Romanian titles? PatGallacher (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Queen of Romania or the Romanians

Which was she Queen of Romania or the Romanians? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Marie of Rumania.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Marie of Rumania.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

dobroudja matter

"In 1940, when Balchik and the rest of Southern Dobrudja were returned to Bulgaria" since the subject of dobroudja is still nowadays a very sensitive one for both romanians and bulgarians, please either remove the aforementioned phrase or insert citation. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.102.161 (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)