Contents

Talk:Sophia of Hanover

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Mid-importance). Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. British Royalty Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Scottish Royalty Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scottish Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Scottish RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject Scottish RoyaltyScottish royalty articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Women's History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It seems Anne was no fan. How often did they correspond? Was any attempt to investigate poisoning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biofuel (talk • contribs) 22:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, this page should be at "Sophia of the Palatinate" or "Sophia of Simmern". But that would be pretty hardcore, wouldn't it? Any opinions? john 22:23 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Is this the same Sophia as the character in Neal Stephenson's Quicksilver trilogy? crazyeddie 08:07, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Andrew Levine 22:19, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I created and inserted a new template which shows the House of Stuart's connection to the House of Hanover. It ain't the prettiest template in the world, but then it is the first one I have ever created.--*Kat* 19:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, it has been removed. Templates are only to show members of a single house. Charles 19:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um...I don't know what exactly Joseph Munchausen von Braunschweig-Lüneburg did with himself, but I'm pretty dang sure he was never the Emperor of Japan. I've removed the job title, but I'm not sure what to replace it with. I've also removed the extremely doubtful nickname of 'Coolio' given to his brother. Inara42 10:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone want to add Image:Sophia of Hanover.jpg to this article? Carcharoth 05:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Carcharoth 05:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A list of her issue, similar to the one in the article on Anne of Great Britain, would be nice. --72.196.0.51 (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely to require rephrasing in two years time. Her Present Majesty is now 82. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Cromwell was 85 when he died. And a lord protector was a monarch in all but name. Pevernagie (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia was never the heiress-presumptive to the Kingdom of Scotland. See Act of Security 1704 and List of heirs of Scotland. Opera hat (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved to Sophia of the Palatinate in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Alternatively, does anyone think Sophia, Electress of Hanover more appropriate? -- Jack1755 (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer Sophia, Electress of Hanover. This seems like a clear ignore all rules instance - she simply isn't known as Sophia of the Palatinate. john k (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer Sophia of Hanover, as that is the most common name. The change should have been discussed before it was made, as it is clearly controversial. Surtsicna (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually John, I've seen her referred to as Sophia of the Palatinate many times:

• George I‎ (Yale English Monarchs Series) by Ragnhild Marie Hatton - Biography & Autobiography - 2001 - 416 pages Page 373

• Cromwell‎ - Page 547 by Antonia Fraser - Biography & Autobiography - 2001 - 576 pages

• Bishop Burnet's history of his own time‎ - Page 266 by Gilbert Burnet, Martin Joseph Routh, Thomas Burnet - History - 1833

• A Land of Liberty?: England 1689-1727‎ by Julian Hoppit - History - 2002 - 602 pages]

• Freedom just around the corner: a new American history, 1585-1828‎ - Page 533 by Walter A. McDougall - History - 2005 - 656 pages

• Privileged persons: four seventeenth-century studies‎ - Page 323 by Hester W. Chapman - Biography & Autobiography - 1966 - 319 pages

• George I, elector and king‎ - page 373 by Ragnhild Marie Hatton - Biography & Autobiography - 1978 - 416 pages

• The New Encyclopaedia Britannica‎ by Encyclopaedia Britannica International (University of chicago - Reference - 1980 - 151 pages) Page 355

• Modes and manners‎ by Max von Boehn - Art - 1932 Page 91

• Historical Memoirs of the Duc de Saint-Simon: 1710-1715‎ - Page 338 by Louis de Rouvroy Saint-Simon (duc de) - History - 1968

• Debrett's kings and queens of Europe‎ - Page 137 by David Williamson - History - 1988 - 208 pages

• The king who never was: the story of Frederick, Prince of Wales‎ - Page 15 by Michael De-la-Noy - Biography & Autobiography - 1996 - 240 pages

• Side lights on English history: being extracts from letters, papers, and ...‎ - Page 66 by Ernest Flagg Henderson - History - 1900 - 300 pages

• Encyclopaedia Britannica‎ - 1973 Page 69

• The letter-book of John Viscount Mordaunt, 1658-1660‎ - Page 135 by Viscount John Mordaunt Mordaunt, Mary Coate - History - 1945 - 196 pages

• Colonists of New England and Nova Scotia: Burgess and Heckman families‎ - Page 7 by Kenneth Farwell Burgess - Reference - 1956 - 134 pages

• The world's history: a survey of man's record‎ - Page 503 by Hans Ferdinand Helmolt - History - 1903

• Events that changed Great Britain from 1066 to 1714‎ - Page 179 by Frank W. Thackeray, John E. Findling - History - 2004 - 201 pages

• Hanover and Great Britain, 1740-1760: diplomacy and survival‎ - Page 5 by Uriel Dann - History - 1991 - 174 pages

• The encyclopedia Americana‎ - page 777 by Grolier Incorporated - Juvenile Nonfiction - 2000

• Queenship in Europe 1660-1815: the role of the consort‎ - Page 278 by Clarissa Campbell Orr - Social Science - 2004 - 419 pages

• Cyclopedia of painters and paintings‎ - Page 288 by John Denison Champlin - Art - 1913

• Miniatures and silhouettes‎ - Page 32 by Max von Boehn - Miniature painting - 1970 - 214 pages

• Anglo-Dutch cross currents in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries ...‎ - Page 45 by Paul R. Sellin, Stephen Bartow Baxter - History - 1976 - 68 pages

• Chamber's encyclopaedia‎ - Page 728 Juvenile Nonfiction - 1963

• The story of British coinage‎ - Page 134 by Peter John Seaby - Antiques & Collectibles - 1985 - 250 pages

• Nicolaus Steno and his Indice‎ by Gustav Scherz, Nicolaus Steno - Biography & Autobiography - 1958 - 314 pages Page 52

• The Royal Descents of 600 Immigrants: To the American Colonies Or the United ...‎ - Page 238 by Gary Boyd Roberts - Reference - 2008 - 910 pages

• History of the German people from the first authentic annals to the present time‎ - Page 174 by Charles Francis Horne - History - 1916

• Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses Who Stole Their Father's Crown‎ by Maureen Waller - History - 2004 - 480 pages Page N/A

• King George II and Queen Caroline‎ - Page 219 by John Van der Kiste - Biography & Autobiography - 1997 - 230 pages

• The American historical review‎ - Page 468 by John Franklin Jameson, Henry Eldridge Bourne, Robert Livingston Schuyler, American Historical Association, JSTOR (Organization) - History - 1898

• The maiden's mirror: reading material for German girls in the sixteenth and ...‎ - Page 43 by Cornelia Niekus Moore - Literary Criticism - 1987 - 269 pages

• The companion to British history‎ - Page 616 by Charles Arnold-Baker - History - 2001 - 1391 pages

• & so forth.

-- Jack1755 (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, I wouldn't mind having this article titled Sophia of the Palatinate because the article would be consistent with other articles about consorts and the books you cite (although some of them are not specialized in this field) prove that the title isn't invented. My opinion notwithstanding, I hope you won't mind me playing devil's advocate. My concern is that Sophia of Hanover is the name which is most commonly used to refer to this woman. For example, 98 books refer to her as Sophia of the Palatinate, while 974 books refer to her as Sophia of Hanover. Books which are used as references in the article about her son also refer to her as Sophia of Hanover. It's certainly not a normal practice to refer to a consort by her "married name", but it may have something to do with the facts that she was known as "Electress Sophia of Hanover" during Anne's reign (meaning that 18th-century sources refer to her as Sophia of Hanover) and that she brought the Crowns of Great Britain and Ireland to the House of Hanover.

Perhaps it would be best to move the article back and then propose move to Sophia of the Palatinate. That way more people join the discussion and give their arguments. Or it could be the other way around. What do you say? Surtsicna (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you totally Surtsicna. Perhaps Sophia of the Palatinate, Electress of Hanover? Or, alternatively, Sophia, Electress of Hanover. Feel free to move it back :). I comprehend your concerns, which are very much true. -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the article back to Sophia of Hanover. Sophia of the Palatinate, Electress of Hanover is a too long. Sophia, Electress of Hanover is a better choice, though it is used less often than Sophia of Hanover. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest Surtsicna, I wouldn't be too vexedd if it stayed at Sophia of Hanover. -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason that she, unlike most other consorts (not her mother, though), is known largely by her married name is the Act of Settlement. Basically, for all that her life was interesting, and such, she is basically known for one thing - that the Act of Settlement made the heirs of her body the heirs to the throne of England. And in that context she is almost always referred to as "Electress Sophia of Hanover." In general, I don't think it's that big a deal, though. None of us seem to feel too strongly about it, so maybe just leave it where it's been. john k (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Jack1755 (talk)

When the law was passed in 1701, Sophia (age 71), .... were alive. Although Sophia was in her seventy-first year, ...

They can't both be right. If she were already 71, she would have been in her 72nd year. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Her date of birth is given as 14 October 1630. Was this the Old Style date or rectified to the New Style? I believe the Hague still used the Julian (Old Style) calendar at the time of her birth.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Her husband Ern(e)st August(us) is described as 'Elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg' at the time she married him. This is not so. The article gives the impression that the Electorate of Brunswick-Lüneburg somehow preceded the creation of that of Hanover. In fact they were the same thing, and it was created in 1692. It should be 'Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg'. This is explained at some length in the Wikipedia article on 'prince-elector'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.146.43 (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, Sophia never visited England. However, the article "Act of Succession 1701" says "Sophia herself went to England to campaign for the act". Neither claim is supported by a citation. One of them is wrong. Which is it? 209.179.101.211 (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is missing from the article now, but I've added a ^{[citation needed]} tag to the claim in this article. I tried to find a primary source, but all I found were articles using more or less the exact same wording as The Wikipedia. If true, it's an interesting fact. --CGPGrey (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Given the ailing William III's reluctance to remarry, the inclusion of Sophia in the line of succession was becoming more likely.[8]"

This isn't right. Even if William had remarried and had children they would not have succeeded; the Act of Succession provided that only his children by his first wife Mary could succeed as he reigned in her right. After Anne, and any children she might have, Sophia was always going to be next. Can't edit this myself as can't get the hang of all the rules (and can't be bothered to find a reference to the source) but it's true. 81.153.132.68 (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC William himself was brought forward in the line of succession to co-rule with Mary by the Glorious Revolution but any children he had by any later wife would have come after Anne and her children. William was a grandson of Charles I by his daughters and thus close in the line of succession in his own right but Parliament only accepted his demands for his own person. In practice by 1701 neither he nor Anne had any prospect of living children. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they were called "The Winter King and Queen of Bohemia" doesn't seem relevant to the article. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]