Talk:Marie of Romania

Conversion Dispute

[1]

Who is correct? Baha'is or Princess Ileana?

Princess Ileana of Romania (Queen Marie's daughter) January 30. On this date in in 1926, Martha Root secured the first of her eight meetings with Queen Marie of Romania, which occurred from January 1926 through February 1936. Although Bahá'ís frequently refer to her as "the first member of a royal family to embrace the Bahá’í Faith,"

Queen Marie's daughter disputes this claim:

"It is perfectly true that my mother, Queen Marie, did receive Miss Martha Root several times.....She came at the moment when we were undergoing very great family and national stress. At such a moment it was natural that we were receptive to any kind of spiritual message, but it is quite incorrect to say that my mother or any of us at any time contemplated becoming a member of the Baha’i faith.".

So according to the above quote from a book on the Queen's daughter, she was interested in looking into the religion, but never really converted to it, her or anyone in the royal family. 2601:243:C502:3650:91C:14B3:C29E:4DB8 (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi, Kahlil Gibran, Leo Tolstoy, Desmond Tutu, and others have made simmilar statements without people thinking that they have converted. The Queen's quote have been misinterpret as meaning she had converted while her opinion was actually simmilar to the people I listed. No quote of the Queen is on record saying she ever identified as Baha'i or believed in the religion. She might have liked disccusing it or liked some of it teaching or had a positive image of it, but so did the other people listed. (I hope I spelled the name correctly.) 2601:243:C502:3650:189B:C837:2448:EEB (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The quote found in Google books shows that according to her daughter the Princess, that the Queen remained Eastern Orthodox until she died. The sources that she converted are all based on rumors or rumors based on her positive quotes which aren't any different from quotes that Gandhi, Gibran, Tolstoy, or Tutu have also given on the subject. 2601:243:C502:3650:189B:C837:2448:EEB (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I looked around Google Books myself, and found numerous sources (many of them independent, unaffiliated with Baha'is) speaking of a conversion, or of Marie as the first Baha'i monarch. I understand that the evidence for this is not rock-solid, but we do have a preponderance of sources making the claim, and thus should quote it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

While the quotes can remain as allegations of a conversion, the categories says that she is or is not a category rather than she is alleged to be a category. Also, be careful as your criteria can easily crossover into allowing any disinformation to be seen as credible. Disinformation is different from propoganda in that people don't dig any further on a story than it having a preponderance of sources. Take for instance how lots of mainstream media outlets just parrot stuff the Communists Party of China says in stories. Sometimes it's in barely labels full ads and sometimes in actual articles. The points being just because a preponderance of sources parrot something, it still doesn't preclude people from digging deeper to look at the truth. A better example would be Baha'i statistics. Baha'is have produced membership mumbers of alleged Baha'is in each nation's and lots of sources parrot the numbers. When people actually do polls of religious affiliations in various areas around the world and census data on it also, the number of Baha'is is always lower than in Baha'i sources and other sources that just parrot the Baha'i numbers. The points being that while the allegations of her having converted can stay, they should clearly be balanced by Princess Illena's quote as well as making clear that the allegation are allegations rather than actual proof of conversion. I would go even further to remove all the Baha'i tagged categories like 20 Century Baha'is, English Baha'is, Romanian Baha'is, Converts from Romanian Orthodoxy to the Baha'i Faith, Converts to the Baha'i Faith, etc be removed. Currently, the wording of the article gives the impression the conversion is a fact rather than a widely repeated allegation. 73.75.8.205 (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Surtsicna:, @SilkTork:, @PatGallacher: - thoughts on this? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

If there is documented doubt by reliable sources that a conversion took place then it is important to mention that in the article. But we don't confuse or mislead readers by removing any mention of Baha'i from the article; we add to the knowledge by indicating that sources say she converted, though this is questioned by other sources. That the main sources for the conversion are Baha'i sources is interesting, but the [books.google.co.uk/books?id=WPILfbtT5tQC&pg=PA779 Encyclopedia of Women and Religion in North America], published by Indiana University, also says she was a convert, so - regardless of personal concerns - we have to say it was so. In short, add Princess Ileana's sourced denial of the conversion to the existing text. Also, add Encyclopedia of Women and Religion in North America as a source so readers can see that it's not just Baha'i sources that say she converted. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This new entry by the Encyclopaedia Iranica might shed more light on it.[2] - LouisAragon (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Should have pinged to make it more "visible", @Alexcoldcasefan:, @SilkTork: - LouisAragon (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Did anyone check the quality of the source claiming there was not a conversion? See Elwell-Sutton, L.P. (1976). "Review of "The Baha'i Faith" Its History and Teaching by William McElwee Miller". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (2): 157–158. JSTOR 25203713. Retrieved 2012-03-16. Disinformation indeed. Smkolins (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it is inappropriate to use Miller's book as a reliable source for making any claim in wikipedia. If it is going to be mentioned it should be characterized as a polemical work making claims. Striking that, I'm willing to agree that Baha'i sources say conversion while other biographies like Hannah Pakula (1996). The Last Romantic: A Biography of Queen Marie of Roumania. Phoenix Giant. p. 337. ISBN 978-1-85799-816-0. say she had an intense personal connection with the religion in her personal life but "continued to attend the Protestant Church" though she "…prayed 'better at home with my Baha-u-llah books and teachings…' ".(add that cite) Smkolins (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Be bold and edit! Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand - just trying to work with the talk consensus. … listening? User:SilkTork Alexcoldcasefan User:LouisAragon. Smkolins (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm all for including as much information as possible, especially where there are disputes; so we record both sides of the dispute. We say "this source says A, while this source says B", and leave it at that. We don't have to resolve the debate - indeed, we shouldn't get involved in that at all. So Smkolins's proposal works for me. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with the approach of stating "this source says A, while this source says B", however what I object to is the facile dismissal of the source containing Ileana's letter as "disinformation" simply because her dismissal of her mother's purported conversion, corroborated by Pakula's biography, does not comport with the officially-sanctioned narrative of the Bahá'í Administrative Order. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Smkolins: @SilkTork: That sounds like a reasonable solution. Owing to the doubts being cast about the nature of Miller's work (as an anti-Baha'i polemic) and its reliability, I think WP:WEIGHT also applies. This seems especially true if Miller's work is the only source explicitly denying a conversion took place. As @Biruitorul: mentioned, most sources seem to lean towards there having been a conversion. Of course, as @LouisAragon: pointed out in the Iranica article, the truth of the matter may have been more subtle: Marie was obviously a strong supporter and promoter of Baha'i, but the text stops short of calling her a convert, noting: "Because of the numerous statements and testimonies left for posterity by Queen Marie, Bahais around the world consider her to be the first Crowned Head to accept and promote the teachings of Bahāʾ-Allāh." [3] This angle is already well reflected in the article, but perhaps we could borrow some of Iranica's phrasing and specify that Ileana denied any formal conversion? Something like this:

Desolate and almost stripped of her belief, Marie turned to the religious teachings of the Bahá'í Faith, which she found "vastly appealing". She was particularly attracted by the idea of humanity's unification under one faith, given her own religiously divided family. Introduced to the doctrine by Martha Root, Marie carried on a correspondence with Shoghi Effendi, then head of the Faith, where she expressed her conversion. Additionally, she made several public statements promoting the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh, describing him as a prophet similar to Jesus or Muhammad. This written correspondence has led Bahá'ís to regard her as the first Crowned Head to accept and promote the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh, and as the first royal convert to their religion. Biographer Hannah Pakula notes that Marie "continued to attend the Protestant Church", even though she "prayed 'better at home with my Baha-u-llah books and teachings'", and other sources claim that Marie's own daughter Ileana denied any formal conversion had taken place.

What do you think? That seems pretty neutral to me. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Considering this review and the nature of Miller's book, I don't think it should be quoted without mentioning its polemic nature:

Almost no aspect of Bahá'í history escapes this treatment. A well-to-do philanthropist like Mrs. W. Sutherland Maxwell of Montreal, and professional people such as Keith Ransom-Kehler and Dr. Susan Moody, whose dedication of their funds and skills to the work of the Bahá'í Faith was an inspiration to their coreligionists all over the world, are described as "paid pioneers." The open and emphatic declaration of her faith as a Bahá'í by Queen Marie of Rumania, in letters to newspapers and to the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith (some of which were published with her consent in photostat form in Volumes VI and VIII of The Bahá'í World) is passed over in silence, and a letter from the Queen's daughter, a member of a Christian religious order, is used to raise doubt about the "alleged" conversion of the Queen. Countless other examples could be cited.review by Douglas Martin

Is the statement from Ileana published anywhere else besides Miller's book? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

This review, published in Bahá'í Studies, starts with the sentence, "William McElwee Miller is a man with an obsession." If polemics and polemicists are being discussed, I can think of no greater example than the author who wrote the review, Douglas Martin, who pursued a professional career in public relations and advertising prior to committing himself to full time service in the Bahá'í Administrative Order. He was a member of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Canada from 1960 to 1985, serving as its general secretary from 1965 to 1985. In 1985, he was appointed director-general of the Bahá'í International Community's Office of Public Information at the World Centre in Haifa, in which capacity he served until 1993 when he was elected to the Universal House of Justice, from where he retired in 2005 due to considerations of age. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Aside from being a minimally rewritten copy paste of this article: https://bahaikipedia.org/Douglas_Martin the infodump has no relation to your accusation of him being a polemicist. My thoughts on the matter of McElwee's book is that it should be treated a valid source, but the exact wording of Marie's daughters letter should be included (so it is clear that the letter itself is being cited, rather than any commentary from McElwee).UrielvIII (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, Martin's status as a Baha'i is not relevant. Miller's book is written as an attack on the religion and is not a reliable source. Baha'is pointing out its factual errors only highlight its polemic nature. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I've not been able to find anyone else quoting the letter - only a few others pointing it is there. Deniers of the conversion quibble about whether permission was giving for letters to be published but never observe that retractions never came, or that they want to see signatures on one set of letters but never even question if there is a signature on the other letter. I've never seen it actually described, and there are certainly ellipsis, in any professional journal article whatsoever. And even where it is used outside of academic review it is never qualified in context. And to be clear, Martin's critique is not the only one. I was citing one by L. P. Elwell-Sutton published in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. And User talk:A35821361 Martin's long years of service to the religion matter is not germane. We're talking about published sources reviewing Miller's work. I can't find ANY positive review of it (save for one explicitly missionary appreciation.) Smkolins (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with removing Miller: not only is it a badly-received polemic, it's also published by the William Carey Library, an outfit run by and for Protestant missionaries.

Meanwhile, I found an article (it's in Romanian, but here's a link to a translation, for convenience) which suggests that during the 1920s and '30s, Ileana's involvement with Baha'ism was about as deep as her mother's. Of course, by 1970, she was an Orthodox nun, but this tidbit may be worth noting in Ileana's biography. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Biruitorul: I just found this thread on problematic sources from 2008 which supports what you're saying. Apparently people have been trying to add Miller's book to articles for years despite it being essentially a self-published religious tract :( Thanks for double-checking. All this said, I agree now that it should be removed. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 17:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Two quotes from the self-publishing discussion you linked above: "The book is published, in the U.S. by an Ahmadi publishing house: Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at Islam Lahore, Inc., effectively making it self-published" and "The book is published by the William Carey Library effectively making it self-published."

The overwhelming majority of citations referred to in Bahá'í-related articles are those published by the Bahá'í Administrative Order. For many articles there is hardly any reference to any material that is not produced by a publishing house owned by the Bahá'í Administrative Order while for numerous other articles the material cited is exclusively produced by the publishing houses of the Bahá'í Administrative Order.

If we are to refer Miller's book as "disinformation" and "polemical", then the same standard should be applied across the board.

Regards, A35821361 (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Fine, but Marie's conversion to, or at least her profound interest in, the Bahá'í Faith is attested by multiple independent sources published by outfits that have nothing to do with the Bahá'ís. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Fine, specifically means, speaking for myself, if a specific source has specific credible doubt expressed in reliable sources. Smkolins (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Unlike the Baha'i sources Miller's books have been criticized by independent third party sources (eg. L. P. Elwell-Sutton cited by Smkolins). You can not apply the same 'standard' while ignoring that fact and call yourself unbias. Once again, as appears to be a pattern, you seize on what seems to be a weaker point and ignore any other point raised. UrielvIII (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:USEBYOTHERS: "widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." You're confusing two issues by saying that uncontentious Baha'i sources that are widely cited by reputable publishers are in the same boat as a Christian author attacking the Baha'i Faith with alternative facts. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's get this discussion back on track. We've established, I think, that Miller probably shouldn't be quoted. But I don't really see anything else in the Bahá'í paragraph that might not be up to the standards set by WP:RS.

Pakula is published by Simon and Schuster. Hutchinson is from Indiana University Press. Encyclopædia Iranica is peer-reviewed. So is the Baha'i Studies Review.

Is there any remaining point of contention regarding the validity of sources? - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Back on track indeed. I think the current version is fine. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with A35821361 in that Miller's source is not attacked because of what he wrote about Marie: it's attacked for a different reason, and therefore it is not contested in relation to Ileana's letter. In contrast, Baha'i sources stating that Marie was a convert are contested, and therefore they should not be used in the article without a contrary opinion. If the Baha'i sources are used in the article then so should the letter; otherwise, the article is not appropriately balanced. I also agree with Cuñado in that the present version is fine, giving balance to both views, being supported by the sources and correctly saying who said what when. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 11:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Stating that she expressed her "conversion" to Shoghi Effendi is the point of contention of this whole discussion. It is more accurate to state that she expressed her affinity to Bahá'í teachings, as this is explicitly what she expressed. Throughout history there have been many prominent individuals that have expressed affinity to various religious doctrines without converting to those specific religions. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 09:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You specify "she expressed her "conversion" to Shoghi Effendi" so you are speaking of Marie, yet I know of nowhere Marie used the characterization "affinity". You seem to be using what are reported to be some of her daughter's words many decades later in a highly questionable source - a recourse historians tend to disfavor when giving weight to something. Sources close to the time are generally given more weight. Another characterization from the same period quoting Marie's own words says, for example, " 'Some of those of my caste,' she, in a personal letter, has significantly testified, '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 I rejoice in the knowledge.' " [4] What characterization fits that better? Affinity? That doesn't seem credible. Smkolins (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Quotes from Marie

From Marie on the Baha'i Faith, as published in God Passes By, by Shoghi Effendi. Original letters from the Queen to Shoghi Effendi and Martha Root are kept in the Baha'i archives in Haifa and can be viewed by visitors.

• “A religion, which links all creeds … a religion based upon the inner spirit of God … It teaches that all hatreds, intrigues, suspicions, evil words, all aggressive patriotism even, are outside the one essential law of God, and that special beliefs are but surface things whereas the heart that beats with Divine love knows no tribe nor race.”
• “It came, as all great messages come, at an hour of dire grief and inner conflict and distress, so the seed sank deeply.”
• “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 I rejoice in the knowledge.”
• “these teachings are the solution for the world’s problems”
• "[the writings of Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l‑ Bahá are] a great cry toward peace, reaching beyond all limits of frontiers, above all dissensions about rites and dogmas … It is a wondrous message that Bahá’u’lláh and His Son ‘Abdu’l‑ Bahá have given us! They have not set it up aggressively, knowing that the germ of eternal truth which lies at its core cannot but take root and spread … It is Christ’s message taken up anew, in the same words almost, but adapted to the thousand years and more difference that lies between the year one and today.”
• “If ever, the name of Bahá’u’lláh or ‘Abdu’l‑ Bahá comes to your attention, do not put their writings from you. Search out their books, and let their glorious, peace-bringing, love-creating words and lessons sink into your hearts as they have into mine … Seek them and be the happier.”
• “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, Muḥammad, 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.”
• “Indeed a great light came to me with the Message of Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l‑ Bahá … My youngest daughter finds also great strength and comfort in the teachings of the beloved Masters. We pass on the Message from mouth to mouth, 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 a 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 … Little by little the veil is lifting, grief tore it in two. And grief was also a step leading me ever nearer truth; therefore do I not cry out against grief!”
• “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.” And again, this wonderful confession: “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.”
• “The beautiful truth of Bahá’u’lláh,” she wrote to Martha Root, “is with me always, a help and an inspiration. What I wrote was because my heart overflowed with gratitude for the reflection you brought me. I am happy if you think I helped. I thought it might bring truth nearer because my words are read by so many.”
• To Martha Root: “Both Ileana and I were cruelly disappointed at having been prevented going to the holy Shrines … but at that time we 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 … 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.”
• Writing to a childhood friend who lived near ‘Akká, in a house formerly occupied by Bahá’u’lláh: “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…”
• Two years before her death: “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.”
• "Even doubters would find a powerful strength in [The Kitab-i-Iqan], if they would read it alone, and would give their souls time to expand."

I'm sharing because someone claimed that she did not convert but had an "affinity" for the Baha'i Faith. I think it's clear from her own pen that she was a follower of the Baha'i Faith and believed Baha'u'llah was the prophet of a new revelation for the age. She also mentioned that Ileana was reading many of the books with her and, at least as a youth, equally interested in it. The quote from Ileana in Miller's book seems to contradict letters from Marie herself where the originals exist, it lacks an original, it was published in a polemic attack, and if you have any academic integrity you should not be giving it much weight at all. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Even in the polemic works of Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith, Queen Marie is never quoted as being a Bahá'í, but as being "a follower of the Bahá'í teachings."

This reminds of how Muslims quote various famous non-Muslims' statements about Islam...

• "I hope the time is not far off when I shall be able to unite all the wise and educated men of all the countries and establish a uniform regime based on the principles of Qur'an which alone are true and which alone can lead men to happiness." - Napoleon Bonaparte
• "I believe if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring much needed peace and happiness. I have studied him - the man and in my opinion is far from being an anti–Christ. He must be called the Savior of Humanity. I have prophesied about the faith of Mohammad that it would be acceptable the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today." - George Bernard Shaw
• "It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher." - Annie Besant
• "In Islam, we live and die all." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
• "The legislation of Quran will spread all over the world, because it agrees with the mind, logic and wisdom." – Leo Tolstoy

Regards, A35821361 (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Odd Comparisons. Marie wrote extensively throughout different periods of her life, wrote letters to the public encouraging them to study the works of Baha'u'llah, and tried to go on pilgrimage. The examples you give are different for many reasons, the most obvious is that Napoleon was writing to an Islamic ruler and trying to sound like a Muslim so that he could conquer the Middle East up to British India. There are many commentaries saying so. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

A35821361 this is sophistry, what would you take as support for conversion other than repeated statements from her and the official leader of the Bahá’í Faith that she followed Bahá’í teachings? There is no official record or who is an is not a Bahá’í from this time period. Your argument could apply for instance to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, who was never registered as a Bahá’í and the only evidence of his conversion is his repeated statements that he considered himself a follower of Bahá’í teachings. Yes, there are contrary source re. Marie, but it is not incorrect to state that she expressed her conversion and that the leader of the Bahá’í Faith wrote of her as a follower of the Bahá’í Faith. In addition we can state that other sources, outside of herself and the leadership of the Bahá’í Faith, state that no such conversion occured. Also, you really need to stop editing things when consensus doesn't exist, you stand on the edge of edit warring while being careful never to directly violate rules. Some relevant quotes from Wikipedia:Edit_warring:

• The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.
• Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making consensus harder to reach. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense.

Chillax. penultimate_supper (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Re-reading the discussion, I recommend replacing the word "affinity" with "commitment" while retaining language that indicates that Bahá’ís regard her as a convert, while one source argues otherwise. Commitment is in line with her own statement and those of Shoghi Effendi and other Bahá’í sources, while avoiding whether there is or is not evidence of an official conversion (since no such evidence exists for almost any historical figure regarding religious affiliation). penultimate_supper (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

We're getting too caught up in quotes by Marie (primary sources). We need to base our assessment on what reliable secondary sources say with regard to her conversion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Which "reliable secondary sources" state her conversion? Regards, A35821361 (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Shoghi Effendi was not just the "head" of Bahá'ísm but its Guardian, a very specific role. Also please maintain NPOV on W.E. Miller's academic work, describing it as "polemical" because it is not an officially-sanctioned work. Regards, A35821361 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marie of Romania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140415155000/http://www.muzeulcotroceni.ro/engleza/istoric_eng.html to http://www.muzeulcotroceni.ro/engleza/istoric_eng.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131217224818/http://www.historia.ro/node/65 to http://www.historia.ro/node/65

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 30 January 2018

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: consensus not to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

---

• Marie of Romania → Marie of Edinburgh
• Maria of Yugoslavia → Maria of Romania
• Alexandra of Yugoslavia → Alexandra of Greece and Denmark

– First I would like to point out that Marie of Edinburgh was moved to Marie of Romania back in 2010, with the results being 4 "Support" against 6 "Oppose" so I cannot even figure out how it got moved in the first place. Based on the current naming conventions that we have, the articles for 'almost' all of the deceased royals consorts have been titled by their maiden names unless it can be proved that one consort has been known by her subsequent title as queen. I would like the users to share their opinions and determine which titles best suit these articles. Keivan.f^Talk 05:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Since there is more than one Maria of Romania and more than one Alexandra of Greece, I don't think the latter two suggestions are going to work. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The only other Marias of Romania are Princess Maria of Romania (1870–1874) and Princess Marie of Romania, who were not royal consorts, but rather princesses. Maria of Yugoslavia can be easily moved to Maria of Romania with a hatnot placed on top of each of those articles, and after all I guess she's apparently more notable than the two other princesses who shared this name. The thing that surprises me is that why Maria of Romania redirects to Marie of Romania (Edinburgh). It just makes the readers more confused. As for Alexandras, Princess Alexandra of Greece and Denmark was a Russian grand duchess while Alexandra of Greece and Denmark was a queen consort. The title "Princess" should not be used in this case for the latter, and again hatnots cannot be added to both of these articles. Keivan.f^Talk 16:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps the later two could be named something like "Maria of Romania, Queen of Yugoslavia," similar to Elisabeth of Bavaria, Queen of Belgium.

I thought that WP:ROY had the standard of using Queen 'name' of country, for monarchial consorts? GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Not for all of the consorts, only the most recent ones have articles which follow the format of "Queen (name) of country". For the past consorts it's usually either their maiden name or "maiden name, Queen of country" like Elisabeth of Bavaria, Queen of Belgium or Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia. Keivan.f^Talk 02:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I see. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

We still have the strange case of Queen Anne of Romania, who's no longer alive & was never Queen-consort of Romania. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose This was indeed discussed at some length in 2010, see the link above for the actual arguments, I think we should be cautious about re-opening this sort of thing. If you actually read WP:NCROY there is no consistent standard for royal consorts, but we tend to be moving away from treating maiden name as the default. For one thing, Dorothy Parker's poem describes her as "Marie of Roumania". PatGallacher (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@PatGallacher: Do all of the sources refer to her as Marie of Romania? And by the way, based on your comment you are opposing the move of only one of the three pages. What about the other two: Maria and Alexandra? Keivan.f^Talk 02:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I never claimed that all sources refer to her as Marie of Romania, just that this is her WP:COMMONNAME. I also oppose moving the other two since they are mainly known as queen regnant of Yugoslavia. PatGallacher (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Alexandra of Denmark is also mainly known as queen of the United Kingdom, yet her page has been titled in accordance with the naming conventions. Anyway, that's your opinion and I can't change it. We better wait for the other users. Keivan.f^Talk 17:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the Yugoslav moves. Since there are several women of that name, the pages should remain at a disambiguated title and the proposed targets should be disambiguation pages. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Celia Homeford, there is only another notable Greek princess with the name Alexandra: Princess Alexandra of Greece and Denmark. With that page being titled "Princess" Alexandra of Greece and Denmark, and the other page moved to Alexandra of Greece and Denmark (per the naming convention for consorts), there will be no need for a disambugation page. Why one of them should be titled with her maiden name while the other cannot? A hatnot on top of those two articles will automatically help the readers realize who is who. Even if we need a disambugation page for the current Princess Alexndra (who does not seem to be notable) we can have a disambugation page with the title "Alexandra of Greece and Denmark (disambigation page)". Keivan.f^Talk 17:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I think Alexandra of Yugoslavia is more famous as queen of Yugoslavia than she is as a former princess of Greece, whereas the other one is only known for being a princess of Greece and Denmark (she died too young to have any other accomplishments). So, it is reasonable to disambiguate them in the way they currently are. It seems rather less useful to have two princesses Alexandra of Greece and Denmark and have one at Princess Alexandra of Greece and Denmark and the other at Alexandra of Greece and Denmark. That doesn't look disambiguated at all. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Reply Keivan.f, your are persistently referring to "the naming conventions", but if you read WP:NCROY properly you will see that there is no consistent naming convention for royal consorts. It is true that Alexandra of Denmark is at her maiden title, I'm not necessarily against moving her, but this could raise some additional questions, let's deal with any such move request when it comes. PatGallacher (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose all. First, "Marie of Romania", or "Marie of Roumania", is more common than "Marie of Edinburgh". Second, I see little evidence that Maria, Queen of Yugoslavia, is well known as "Maria of Romania"; given the fact that the British-born Marie of Romania is also sometimes called "Maria of Romania", suggests that this title requires further disambiguation. And finally, "Alexandria of Yugoslavia" is more common than "Alexandria of Greece and Denmark".--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

Legion of Honour claim

82.132.242.22, 82.132.220.66, 82.132.225.90, 82.132.234.35 or whatever you call yourself, please try to understand the following:

• Revert-warring is not allowed, and will be sanctioned by administrative intervention;
• Blogs are not reliable sources, even if they are hosted on the websites of long-defunct royal houses. Particularly for articles on prominent historical figures, sources of a higher caliber are expected - books, articles, newspaper reports.

Are we clear? - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

These 82.132.etc IPs are sock puppets of persistent block evader User:Qais13 (blocked for persistent hoaxing). They can therefore be undone under Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions #3. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Mrs Issarescu

The Romanian IP 213.233… denies that Princess Ileana was ever called Mrs Issarescu. There are multiple citations that say she was:

• '"Mrs. Stefan Issarescu, the Princess Ileana of Rumania, will be the guest of honor", The New York Times, October 19, 1954
• "Ileana Issarescu and her six children ... Dr. Stefan Issarescu, the husband of Mrs. Issarescu", United States Congressional serial set, Volume 11904, 1956
• "Mrs Issarescu", Reyes con y sin corona [Kings Without Thrones] by Geoffrey Bocca, 1962 [translation of 1959 original (the English language version is not available online)]
• "Issarescu v. Issarescu". 82 Nev. 239, 239 (1966) [Her divorce proceedings]
• From her OWN mouth: "My name is Ileana, Princess of Rumania, and Mrs. Issarescu, and I live in Newton, 30 Hyde Avenue.", Testimony of Princess Ileana of Rumania to the United States Senate, 1956

This is just a selection of the available citations online. There are of course more in print. She had many names during her life (Princess Ileana of Romania, Archduchess Anton of Austria, Ileana Habsburg, Mrs Issarescu, Mother Alexandra), too many to list in the infobox. So, we should only give the clearest, easiest and most relevant one: Princess Ileana. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Effigy Queen Maria Romania Arch Triumph Bucharest 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Meeting future Queen Elizabeth

The article states that Marie met the future Queen Elizabeth in 1934. This is not true. Elizabeth is pictured with her in a christening photo of her grandson, Crown Prince Peter, in 1923. Here is the photo: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/572660908849527416/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.192.102 (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

In order to even start making sense, your objection would have to account for the fact that Elizabeth was born in 1926, so presumably was not appearing in photographs in 1923. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The photo is quite clear. Here's a better link: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/in-september-1923-king-alexander-1st-of-serbia-queen-news-photo/105216780. You're thinking of another Elizabeth. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Oops! Well, I checked the source, which refers to 1923 not 1934, and modified the text accordingly. I hope everything is now cleared up. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Popular culture section

Regarding this: I have removed it, per MOS:POPCULT generally, with specific justifications below.

In terms of the film, we cannot simply stick in a blind link to IMDB. If we must mention it (incidentally, it was dreadful), I suggest finding a review or something and putting it in the preceding section. Though I would maybe first start an article on the film, provided it’s actually notable.

The book really sounds like trivia, until and unless it gains some notoriety. No, the link to Penguin Random House cannot stay; we are not in the business of sending readers to buy products from particular vendors.

The fact that some English university held a silly event about Marie and vampires? Trivia of the most blatant sort, not worth recording. Finally, the place to write more about the castle is at… Bran Castle, not here. — Biruitorul ^Talk 04:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation regarding MOS:POPCULT. I’m fine moving the discussion of the castle and its folklore to the castle’s page. But the film and novel about Marie both belong here in a popular culture discussion. I’ve added connecting prose and some stronger secondary sources and have reverted this section.LingLass (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead image

i did the portrait of Queen Marie of Romania 1924 by Philip de lászló the artist painter but it get deleted because it wasn’t like that before — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.1.223 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 19 October 2022

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: not moved. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Marie of Romania → Queen Marie of Romania – Reliable sources use this term and consistency with other queens such as Queen Anne of Romania. Interstellarity (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRECISE. In general, if a monarch does not have an ordinal, then they should have a prefix in their article title to indicate their monarchical status. After all, I'm sure there are lots of people in Romania named "Marie". Rreagan007 (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Strictly speaking, few Romanians are called Marie, though many are called Maria (as is the queen when referred to in Romanian). But I’d be surprised if any go around calling themselves “of Romania”. — Biruitorul ^Talk 12:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  • There is no other notable person known in reliable sources as Marie of Romania. This means the proposed title contravenes WP:CONCISE.
• Comment — Romania had four reigning kings and two queens: Carol I of Romania, Ferdinand I of Romania, Michael I of Romania, Carol II of Romania, Elisabeth of Wied and Marie of Romania. Perhaps Queen Anne of Romania (who never served as queen, by the way) is the odd one out, not Marie. —- Biruitorul ^Talk 14:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support in concept but I don't know how it jives with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) which claims there are so many monarchs they don't get the title whereas consorts, prince/ss, etc are apparently rare enough that they should use their title. Seems to me the main exception to allow using the title is #2: If there is an overwhelmingly common name, use it: William the Conqueror, John Balliol, Peter the Great, Henry the Fowler, Mary, Queen of Scots, Gustavus Adolphus, Eric of Pomerania, Charlemagne. This is in line with WP:COMMONNAME. I tend to think the normal, even universal mention of her is as Queen Marie of Romania but I'm not totally sure how to distinguish that from common mentions of others. But from having read various books and circumstances I see Queen commonly to introduce her and then Marie in the content thereafter. Smkolins (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose because I find it bizarre to have Queen Marie of Romania and yet plain Ferdinand I of Romania. Surtsicna (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  I find it bizarre to have Queen Anne of Romania and yet plain Michael I of Romania. Maybe we should change the title of Queen Anne of Romania to just Anne of Romania. Interstellarity (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose — Surtsicna said it well. Let’s at least have internal consistency among the Romanian kings and queens — who after all numbered not in the dozens, but a mere six. — Biruitorul ^Talk 19:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. For what it is worth Queen Marie is far better known outside the country than any of the kings and queens they had? Multiple trips outside the country, syndicated column caried in American newspapers, …? Smkolins (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose glancing over Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) makes me think the most concise name is Marie of Romania. Look how simply Elizabeth II was named, for example. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility).24.15.214.201 (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Just keep the name concise. Specifically for deceased royal consorts we usually avoid the format "Queen X of [Country]". Not to mention that it makes no sense to have "Queen" added to her name while omitting "King" from her husband's. Also, the right course of action would be to move Queen Anne of Romania to Anne of Romania, not the other way around. Keivan.f^Talk 07:14, 27 October 2022 (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.

"Marie of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and United Kingdom" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Marie of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and United Kingdom has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 7 § Marie of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and United Kingdom until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Page title

Shouldn't the title be "Marie of Edinburgh" to match "Mary of Teck" (queen consort of the UK) and "Maud of Wales" (queen consort of Norway" 95.150.39.37 (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Dorothy Parker

Hadn't the famous Dorothy Parker poem better be included in the legacy section?

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 Roumania.

What do y'all think? 2601:644:880:E6C0:C415:1BD6:F15B:700C (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• No, because it fits quite well where it is, and because the poem was composed during Marie’s lifetime. — Biruitorul ^Talk 06:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Marie of Edinburgh

Shouldn't the page's title be "Marie of Edinburgh" to be consistent with other consorts, like Alexandra of Denmark, Mary of Teck, and Maud of Wales? 95.150.39.86 (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

If you look up the page you will see that this issue has been discussed twice before, the consensus is for the present title. If you read WP:NCROY you will see that we don't aim for total consistency in relation to royal consorts. PatGallacher (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@PatGallacher I still think my way would be better. 2A00:23EE:1718:4D75:F1E8:6983:B599:5ADB (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)