Talk:Anne Stuart (daughter of Charles I)

Untitled

Princess Anne of England was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. 9 votes to keep, 1 to merge and redirect, and 7 to delete, some of which endorsed merging content but weren't clear whether the redirect should be kept. Postdlf 01:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Princess Anne of England

Orphaned, three-sentenced article for someone who died at the age of four over 350 years ago. Given that children of famous people today often don't deserve articles based on who their parents were, I don't see how this is any different. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 17:07, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Information added to Charles I of England. Made into redirect. GWO 17:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• No, it gets lost in Charles I. As a royal, she is notable. Keep, if only in stub form. Dunc|☺ 19:16, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain. Hard to decide how to figure notability for people who are royal but never receive the crown. --Improv 21:01, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - I see no hurt in keeping a short stub, and as Dunc said, royals are notable -- Ferkelparade π 21:10, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • DELETE, how is someone who died at age 4 notable? And if Royals are notable, do you know how many royals there are in the world's history?!!! 132.205.15.42 02:40, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, we have several similar short articles that I've come across. I don't think the all deserve to be deleted. —siroχo 22:04, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment - can I request that those people voting to keep this article make an efort to de-orphan it? I did look for a way of including a link from Charles I of England, but as someone else has said it is very easy to get lost in that page. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:58, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Weak-ish keep. I think she's notable enough.. Doesn't hurt. Nadavspi 00:33, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Charles I of England has a lovely table at the bottom of the article. I moved all the info from Anne (namely, that she died of natural causes at age 4) there. Now we can delete her article with clear consciences. Fishal 02:14, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Content doesn't harm Wiki. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 05:33, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Royal families had many children who died young. Few are notable. Give them a mention in their parents' articles, but no more. Gdr 09:11, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
• Keep. Had there been less information, my vote would have been to merge into the disamb Princess Anne. Anyhow, as pointed out, we have many similar short articles, and about very minor soap opera starlets, etc. — Bill 12:24, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Difficult position for me, but I have to say delete. The reason is how many other Annes are going to show up in later English history. It's true that few get to be princesses (Queen Anne goes straight from not-English to Queen), but there isn't a whole lot to say about this child in her own right to justify the confusion. So, if she's already in Chuck I, she needn't be a break out. Indeed, unless the death of the child is notable in the national history, I'd say that no child who fails to live to majority ought to have a separate article. Geogre 19:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep She's a princess - it's history, innit? I say keep on the grounds that this might conceivably be an entry point to someone's research. Someone may come across a reference to Princess Anne of England and not know who it is - so searching on it would bring up this stub and links could be followed.--Tomheaton 20:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This is ridiculous. Stop deletion trolling. Intrigue 20:22, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • That's a very strong accusation. Please read my explanation at the head of this debate, explore my track record on vfd and be careful who you accuse of trolling. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:39, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Needs to be renamed. Not specific enough. There have been dozens of 'Princess Annes of England', including the present Queen's daughter. -- Necrothesp 15:16, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The present Queen's daughter is not "Princess Anne of England". - Nunh-huh 02:43, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Of course she is. As she is a Princess of the United Kingdom, she is also by definition a Princess of England and of Scotland (and, indeed, of Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc). -- Necrothesp 00:34, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • No. There are no Princes or Princesses of England anymore, just as there is no Queen of England. Anne is most properly The Princess Royal, and you could call her a "Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". But not of "England". - Nunh-huh 15:46, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Princess Royal is an honorary title, only bestowed on her in 1987. Previous to that she was simply Princess Anne. You're denying that Elizabeth II is Queen of England? Since England is part of the United Kingdom, she is indeed Queen of England. I am fully aware of the official style, but that does not stop her also being queen of each country within the Union and the successor to the historical monarchies of both England and Scotland. Pointless argument, also irrelevant to the matter under discussion. -- Necrothesp 16:59, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • You brought it up because you thought it relevant. QEII is "Queen of England" only in the same sense that she's "Queen of London". - Nunh-huh 18:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
            • I brought up a valid point. There have been a number of Princess Annes of England, whether you consider the present Princess Anne to be one or not. -- Necrothesp 18:24, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Keep the content but put in another article. This one not needed. Okiedokie 15:20, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep the historical integrity of Wikipedia articles is more important than anti-royal sentiment--Cynical 20:22, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• 'Delete we've already moved the information into Charles I of England. NeoJustin 16:37 Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Isn't there a famous Van Dyck of her with a couple of siblings (James and Elizabeth, maybe?) It'd be nice to get it up here. Would go some way to justifying this silly article (and what kind of person creates this article and not one on her sister Elizabeth, who lived to fifteen, was one of the last people her father spoke to, and was generally more interesting in the way that people who died at fifteen are more interesting than people who died at three. john k 16:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Correction

When I moved the article, one of the reasons I cited was there being a lot of English princesses named Elizabeth. Of course, I meant princesses named Anne. Surtsicna (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 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: moved. Unopposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 13:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Anne Stuart (1637–1640) → Anne Stuart (daughter of Charles I) – Per WP:CONSISTENT with Elizabeth Stuart (daughter of Charles I). Or, the other page should be moved to Elizabeth Stuart (1635–1650). estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom. 2601:249:9301:D570:1877:1728:C421:31DB (talk) 18:44, 13 August 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.