Jump to content

Talk:Constantine II of Greece/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Disturbing racist arguments

I feel that discussions dealing with the "ancestry" of Constantine have fallen in the dark depths of racist retoric during the past couple of months.

Constantine was born in Greece, received a Greek education, won an Olympic medal for Greece and briefy served as Greek head of state. Anyone who claims he is not Greek "for lack of Greek blood" (or, conversely, that he is Greek because his great-great-..-grandmother was a descendant of Byzantine royalty) reminds me of Fallmerayer and his racist arguments -- that in fact the Germans are the genetic descendants of the Greeks, and that contemporary inhabitants of Greece are not Greek because they have no "Greek blood". This type of debate belongs to 19th century. Rastapopoulos 15:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC).

The racist argument does not hold water. The surname Glucksburg is not used as an indication of his Danish/German origine, any more than the surname Karamanlis or Simitis is used to indicate that their ancestors were from Asia Minior, or Evert's from Germany. It is just a surname and, my dear Rastatopoulos, and if you think otherwise: honit soit qui mal y pense (look it up). The main text needs to be re-edited. - Politis 15:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I really appreciate your free language lessons; I feel more cultured now. So much so, that I would like to point out the correct spelling: Honni soit qui mal y pense (look it up). But I digress. You, dear sir, have committed a lapse of reason: Karamanlis, Simitis, Evert etc are bona fide surnames. The former Greek Royal family did not have one, and is is now retroactively required to choose one via the legal process. Whether you like it or not, Constantine did not choose Glucksburg, it was chosen for him for populist reasons by the leftist Greek press et al. Rastapopoulos 08:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I have stated it before, Constantine is as Greek as anyone who has been born and raised on the land, from the Peloponesian elder to the Albanian immigrant's daughter. But I sincerely believe that sticking to the discussion of the guy's "greeknes" or of weather or not naming him Glucksburg is racist or not is counter-productive.I will remove the part you added on the alleged underlying racism of the Glucksburg naming until you provide an actual citation of such a claim, on the grounds that the "some dismiss" phrase is weasel-talk. But even with a citation, please consider leaving it to the reader to decide if such a naming is racist or not. --Michalis Famelis 15:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Michalis, I do not appreciate your weasel-talk remark, it certainly does not add credibility to your approach. I have seen the "racist" argument mentioned in the mainstream Greek press, including newspapers such as KA8HMEPINH. I certainly do not want to participate in a lame edit war, but in good faith would like to ask you: why do you think that some neofascists in Greece sometimes call George Papandreou "Mineiko-Chad"? Is it not to stress his supposed "non-Greekness"? I submit to you that some of those who use (or, at least, those who first introduced and started using) the monicker "Glucksburg" employ the same populist and racist methods of argumentation as the fringe neofascists! Rastapopoulos 08:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I did not mean to offend you, please do not misunderstand. I was not trying to call you a weasel, rather I was referring to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Sorry for any misunderstanding and/or offence I have caused. I meant to say, that rather than having a "some think that..." pattern (which is called "weasel wording" according to the aformentioned WP guideline), it is advisable to use a pattern such as "Some, such as X Kathimerini editor <citation>, say that...".
On the other hand I think that the parrallel with Papandreou is a weak one. He is called Mineiko-Chad by only a handful of marginal ultra-right wingers. On the other hand the use of Glucksburg is used widely and usually is not intended to make a racist point, but rather an effort to use a politically correct way of referring to the man, instead of using either derogatory names such as "o Teos", or names that could be percieved as undermining democracy, such as "Constantine of Greece". While "Mineiko" can be found usually at papers such as Stochos, "Glucksburg" can be found in such prestigious press outlets as the Macedonian News Agency or the National Radio Corporation (ERA). I hope you can see the point I'm trying to make. --Michalis Famelis 12:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Mea culpa Michali, I was not aware of the Wiki-expression. I will try to find the KA8HMEPINH citation and come back. As far as Glucksburg is concerned, I strongly disagree that it is NPOV, impartial, or politically correct. I can too provide citations of equally serious (and not state-owned) press venues that refer to him a Constantine or "the former King" TO BHMA. And granted, there are more people who call Constantine "Glucksburg" than there are people who call George Papandreou "Mineiko". But both categories share the same "weasel wording" (thanks for teaching me that!) -- at least those who first introduced the use of "Glucksburg"'' -- to stress the "foreigness" of "Kokos" Rastapopoulos 15:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Politis, Michalis Famelis and also with Rastapopoulos for being disturbed by the racist claims of Constantine not having Greek blood. Who talks about Greek blood nowadays, naver heard anyone in my life talking about Greek blood of Constantine or anyone else.

Nobody has ever said that there is a problem with his surname as not being Greek, Several people without Greek surname (I'm not taling about greek blood as this term is only used by radical nationalists only), are accepted and apreciated by the Greek society as greek citizens and especially other olympic medalists, so lets don't stuck with this as I can't find any point that Greek press ever spoke about his lack of Greek surname (please give me references for that if I'm wrong). Pyros Dymas and Caciasvili have foreign names and are Golden medalists but noone ever questioned their right to become Greek citizens. The problem with the family of Constanine is that they don't want to become Greek citizens, as those are defined by the Greek constitution:

Part II Individual and Social Rights [edit]

Article 4 Citizenship and Equality

(1) All Greeks are equal before the law. (2) Greek men and Greek women have equal rights and obligations. (3) Greek citizens are those who possess the qualifications specified by the law. No one shall be deprived of his citizenship save in the case of persons assuming on their own free will another citizenship or joining a service in another country which is contrary to the national interests, in accordance with the conditions and procedure laid down by the law in detail. (4) Only Greek citizens shall be eligible for public service save in those cases where exceptions are introduced by specific legislation. (5) Greek citizens shall, without discrimination, contribute towards sharing the burden of public expenditure according to their ability. (6) Every Greek able to bear arms shall be obliged to assist in the defence of the nation, as provided by law. (7) Titles of nobility or distinction shall neither be conferred upon, nor recognized in Greek citizens.

Nobody said that Greek citizenship is related to blood type and genetics or biotechnology. The problem is that they claim to have something beyond the Greek citizeship, which unfortunately for them is not recognised by the county's contitution. Whoever respects the constitution and has read Article 4 (Citizenship and Equality) of Part II (Individual and Social Rights) shouldn't try to use any title for Greek citizens. Why don't they adopt a surname and become Greek citizens? Nobody will have any problem with that. Stevepeterson 16:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Steven, please do not confuse greek citizenship with greek nationality. It is of course a matter of definition of the "Nation" or the "People". According to the definition of the Enlightenment, a "Nation" is what constitutes a nation-state. That is the Constitutional People, the People as defined in the finest document of the Enlightenment, the American Constitution. On the other hand, for a people of such historical background as the Greeks, this definition falls short of the actual understanding of the sense of Common held by the people. We do not believe that being Greek depends on holding Greek citizenship, but rather that it depends on any combination of ancestry, language, religion, customs, history etc. I am not saying all this to make a point about Constantine here, and neither am I implying that this concept of Greekness is anything extra-ordinary among the other nations of the world. It is just that many times these two definitions of Nationhood produce uneccesary obscurity.
Apart from all the above, regarding the actual issue with the article, I stick to my previous post. --Michalis Famelis 17:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


I don't believe in that "it depends on any combination of ancestry, language, religion, customs, history etc" All these change and Greeks (nation) are free to choose their religion, customs etc. Also the magic thing in Greece is its lovely diversity of customs/history/ancestry caused by its long history and the geography that creates a network of small semi/isolated cultural cells. But as you said this is "the definition of the Enlightenment" so we don't have to use it now. So I removed the edits about "calling him Glucksboorg to highlight his lack of Greek blood/name" as nobody has any problem with that, please send me references of articles commending about his blood or not having greek religion or eating greek food etc. The problem is just constitutional and maybe political. Stevepeterson 17:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The "foreigness" of the former Royal family is a constant recurring theme in contemporary Greece. Here is a prime example of an (otherwise wonderful) popular song that makes such a point:
Της Αμύνης τα παιδιά
διώξανε το βασιλιά
Και του δώσαν τα πανιά του
Για να πάει στ’ αφεντικά του
Τον περίδρομο να τρώει
με το ξένο του το σόι
Της Αμύνης το καπέλο
Έφερε το Βενιζέλο
Της Αμύνης το σκουφάκι
έφερε το Λευτεράκη
Rastapopoulos 08:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I usually prefer the variant that reads "τον περιδρομο να τρωει μ'ολο του το σκυλολοι". But, you are missing a point here. This is a song about Constantine I of Greece and his feud with Eleftherios Venizelos. The whole think happened amidst WWI where Greece (finally and against the King's wishes) sided with the Entente. And Greece was so late to enter the war on the Entente side because Constantine I was married to the Keiser's sister. So this version that reads about "το ξενο του το σοι" refers to his wife and the Keiser. Maybe this is just a different interpretation but nonetheless quite a valid one, don't you think? --Michalis Famelis 12:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

When a person accepts Greek citizenship or any other citizenship, they are obliged to abide by the laws and the constitution of that country. The Hellenic Republic requires citizens to have a surname. So does the UK - hence the 'Winsors', changed from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, in 1917. No Greek citizen can go about calling themselves simply, Manolis, Stavros, Ahmet or Constantine. The law is above the individual. Finally, I cannot see how Michalis Famelis could be more polite or more informative on the issue - his attitude and patience have been exemplary. - Politis 13:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Politi, I agree Michalis is polite and informative, maybe we can all take lessons from him. My point is that up to very recently, the passport of Constantine wrote: Constantine, former King of the Hellenes. The late Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou and President K. Karamanlis (both of whom had axes to grind with the former monarch) repealed his passport and citizenship. The last time something like that ever happened in western Europe was when the Junta repealed the passposrt and citizenship of Melina Merkouri. A Greek court then retroactively decided that Constantine should get a surname. Look up the term "retroactive law" and see for yourself if such procedures constitute democratic "best practices". I agree that all of Constantine's offspring born after that court decision should legally get a surname. But to deny citizenship to a former head of state and Olympic medalist -- who rightly or wrongly was percieved as a political threat -- and to force him to change his name on the basis of some retroactive law smacks of fascism. Rastapopoulos 15:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I notice that 'retroactive law' is one that, "operates to make criminal or punishable, or in any way expressly to affect, acts done prior to the passing of the law". Mr. Glucksburg - as he is usually referred to in Greece - is not subject to a criminal investigation. He was born into certain rights pertaining to a reigning royal family and granted by the Greek state. That status and the accompanying rights were reversed when Greece became a Repbulic (Dimokratia). Greek citizens require a surname. Aploustata. During the Athens Olympics, his accreditation pass gave, name: Constantine; surname: Doe (to process the accreditation you needed to fill in all the blank spaces). Prior to that, he had tried the surname 'King', and also, name: King - surname: Constantine.
Regarding the 'fascist' connotations. In 1967, he legalised a fascist coup - that was not against the law because it was his constitutional right to choose which government he swore in. It has taken many Greek years to normalise the impact of those decisions - including the gentleman's insistence over his surname.
Finally, user:Rastapopoulos, I cannot agree that a person's former status gives them special rights over citizenship: the Greek constitution, Article 3, "All persons possessing the qualifications for citizenship, as specified by law, are Greek citizens." - Politis 16:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Kokos

The nickname "Kokos" is used by some Greek journalists in a satirical manner, therefore I think that it can be incorporated in an NPOV way in the article. Here is a citation (in Greek) of an article by Pretenderis a journalist of the mainstream newspaper "TA NEA" and also a mainstream TV journalist. --Michalis Famelis 22:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If "kokos" is going to appear in the text it needs to be translated. Adam 22:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

How can it be translated? It doesn't mean anything! :) The previous editor that had added it said it was a childhood nickname, like "little Constantine", I don't know if that is true, though... I would think it comes from a wordplay on "Konstantinos" to make it sound childish. --Michalis Famelis 23:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Then it needs to be explained why it is derogatory. I am getting a bit suspicious of this whole section. First we were told his derogatory nickname was "o teos." Then we were told it was "Mr Glucksburg." Now we are told it is "kokos." Can we have some citations to show where, by whom and how often these nicknames are used? Perhaps we should just drop all reference to his supposed nicknames. Adam 08:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that keeping the nicknames is useful so as to demonstrate how an important part of the Greek public opinion views the former king. All the three names ("o Teos", "Mr Glucksburg", "Kokos") are real nicknames used by a large part of the press and of society in general.
I have already provided one citation for "Kokos":
  1. Yannis Pretenderis from TO BHMA
For "Teos" a quick googling got me these citations from news sources:
  1. Aleksis Papachelas from TO BHMA
  2. Macedonian News Agency (an article about the visit of Patriarch Bartholomew to Cuba, where Constantine was present)
Also, for "Glucksburg" the following:
  1. IOS team journalists of Eleftherotypia
  2. Macedonian News Agency
  3. Macedonian News Agency
  4. National Radio Corporation (ERA).
Please note that all the above are from mainstream news agencies and are all in Greek. Note that the "Glucksburg" name is not always used as a satirical nickname. Rather it is usually a "politically correct" way to refer to the former king. Besides that, bear in mind that citing the Greek language internet is in general still hard due to lack of spread of the internet in Greece.
Also, these citations are from mainstream news sources only. If we make a step further and refer to the Greek-speaking internet community as a whole, there are even newsgroups where anectodes about "Kokos" are posted such as this one, and there are numerous google results of web forums were the former king is referred to by one of the above nicknames.
--Michalis Famelis 12:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Adam 18:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you think we should add some of the above as footnotes to the article, or would that be too much? --Michalis Famelis 20:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a very minor aspect of his biography and really only merits a mention in passing. Adam 22:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Okey, let's leave it to that then. Goodnight. --Michalis Famelis 23:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ancestry

Michalis Famelis has recently disputed the descent of Constantine II of Greece from Alexius I Comnenus without mentioning his reasons. The descent goes

Not that you could not research the descent through several other ancestral lines. Please research before you dismiss something as a fiction. Constantine II has many ancestors with their own Wikipedia articles. I am Greek myself and I admit to finding the ancestry of Constantine much more interesting than the individual. User:Dimadick

That would make him one part in 2,147,483,648, or roughly one two-billionth, Greek. Thavmasios. Adam 11:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Dimadick, you provide a genealogy, but no source for it. Please cite your sources. Secondly, if there is any meaning in the above, then all or most royalty in Europe have a greek ancestry, so a mention of such in this one would be superfluous, don't you think? Thirdly, why can I not find a mention of this in other WP articles? And fourthly, there is really no need to "prove" Constantine's greekness: He's as much greek as any person who has been born and raised in Greece, from the "pure" mountain villager to the albanian immigrant's daughter... --Michalis Famelis 13:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I only used their Wikipedia articles which do provide the geneological connections to each other. Please take a look at the above articles. I too find it superfluous to add links to distant ancestors when the parents or grandparents of any given individual have their own articles.

However the assumption is that users may use the links to locate further ancestors. You dismissed the connection as "total fiction" on the basis of finding no mention on the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg article.

And in no way does his descent from the Comneni proove his Greekness. But the sentence you removed only mentioned Constantine having "a very mixed ethnic origin, including some Greek blood dating back to the Middle Ages". Which is hardly POV. User:Dimadick

I don't have the time to look at the above articles right now (Java calling) but I will trust that you act in good faith. I dismissed the idea as fiction due to the fact that I have met hardline monarchists who think that Constantine is something like the Palaiologus incarnated or something, and I think that such theories are nothing more than Liakopoulos-style national mysticism. I would argue that the very idea of "greek blood" (or "danish blood", or"afgani blood", or "whatever blood") is flawed and also kind of racist, even in a metaphorical way, but that would be a largely offtopic discussion. Anyway, if we are to have a reference to this ancestry, this genealogical line should be accessible from the article and not in the talk page. But my general attitude about all this is that it really is not notable. (you could argue that the "kokos" reference is equally non notable, but ...whatever!) --Michalis Famelis 22:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

1) Michalis clearly stated that it was "fiction" that Constantine was descended from Alexius I, when, in fact, he is clearly descended from Alexius I. 2) Obviously, Constantine's line of descent means that practically all of the rest of European royalty is descended from Alexius I. 3) I don't see what's wrong with mentioning that Constantine is descended from Byzantine royalty. The statement which Michalis removed clearly stated that this was something he shared with everybody else. It said nothing about "greek blood" or any other mystical essentialist conceptions of race, just that Constantine is descended from a couple of Byzantine emperors, which is true. Given the extent to which Greek republicans go in stating Constantine's lack of Greek blood, I think it's appropriate to note that he has a descent from Byzantine royalty, as long as not too much is made of it. john k 06:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

John, I explained above why I removed the phrase. I didn't have access to the line that Dimadick provided afterwards, and obviously one is prone to be suscpicious of such claims if no citation is given. The citation was given and I accepted Dimadick's good faith, and I hope this made clear that I accepted the grain of truth in those claims. That said I want to point out two things: firstly, if this genealogical line is to be mentioned in the article, the given list must be accesible at the article space, not the talk page. That could mean even that those interested in having this in the article should go to lenghts to even add such information to the article about the former greek royal family, not just this one article. The second thing I'd like to note, is this attitude about greek democrats. You say that we/they go to an extent pointing out Constantine's "ungreekness" (as I said before he's not any less greek than any person born and raised in greece). I hear this repeated over and over in these talk pages, but I have not seen any real citation confirming such an attitude. Could you please point me to one? --Michalis Famelis 08:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

On the second point, I have certainly come across people who have this attitude. I don't like this "greek democrat" business - I am certainly not opposed to Greek democracy, or to the Greek Republic, and I think the Greeks had very good reason not to want Constantine back. But it certainly seems to be there, and seems to be one among several of the points as to why Constantine is not especially liked in Greece. I can't find any official documentation of it, though, so I won't press the point. On the first issue, I'm not sure what your point is. The question is "is Constantine's descent from Byzantine emperors of sufficient interest that it should be remarked upon in the article?" If it is, it should be mentioned, if not, it should not be. I think it's probably of questionable merit, and that one can argue either way. But if it is determined that it is worth mentioning, I have no idea why you think that we should have to give the entire genealogical line in detail. It is a fact that Constantine is descended from Alexius I by a pretty clear line. There is absolutely no need to waste space in this article simply to demonstrate an undisputed genealogical fact. john k 23:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Those who are interested in such things (as I am) can always create a new article, as I did with Roosevelt family tree and Descent of Elizabeth II, not to mention my own descent from Charlemagne. In reply to John, it is certainly a fact that the Greek left have always opposed the monarchy, and one of the reasons they oppose it is because it was imposed on Greece by the Powers after the failed attempt to establish a republic under Capodistrias - first Otto Wittelsbach and then the Glucksbergs. Since the war this has been exacerbated by the fact that the Glucksbergs are in a sense Germans - anti-German sentiment is easy to arouse in Greece, a country where every village has a memorial to people killed by the Nazis. That of course is why monarchists are so pleased to drag out this tenuous descent from the Byzantines. Adam 00:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Adam, where did you find all these about the Germans? I live in Greece for more than 50 years and never heard anyone saying that Constantine was German. You will find references about people argueing that Constantine and his ancestors were always very closely related to British interests (WW1) or about his bad decisions during his period of Monarchy and until the referendum, probably the worse period of the postwar Greece, that led to thousands of people being tortured and killed, but you won't find any reference about Greeks being preoccupied against his name reminding Germans. I think they just call him with that name because they want to give him and surname and don't want to give a Greek one, as a symbolic move. Seriously its the first time I hear that Steliosmpikakis 22:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hopeless POV

This whole argument arose from the silly paragraph about the various silly nicknames he is called in the Greek press. This whole topic is trivial and hopelessly POV, so I have deleted it. It adds nothing of value to the article and we are better off without the endless arguments it causes. Adam 06:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

I have also done (again) a substantial copyedit and removed a lot of irrelevant detail about Greek politics in the 1960s. This is a biographical article and not a chronicle of Greek politics. I will revert any reintroduction of this material into the article, particularly since it also involves my various other changes being reverted at the same time. Adam 02:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Greek politics of the 1960's are Constantine's biography. He was the King at that period and his vital involvement in politics during that period, by installing and dismissing governments brought the political instabillity of the period, the main reason why he is called formerly King and not King. Arnegjor 09:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No, Constantine's biography is Constantine's biography: Greek politics in the 60s are the background to his biography. Of course the political context of his actions must be described, but the exhaustive detail of what various politicians did does not belong in this article. Most of my edits, however, are in the interests of fixing bad English and removing POV rather than reducing the length of the section. Whoever wrote this stuff has an obvious anti-Constantine bias. People cannot be called "apostates" as though this was an accepted fact, for example. Adam 13:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Apostasia is just how the period is called historicaly. Is not biased, as both conservatives and centrist use it, however I'm not sure about the 2% of Constantine's followers. Leader of conservative party Constantine Karamanlis used to call the move "Apostasia of 1965" or "Iouliana" and so did the leaders of his opponent party, Gerorge and Andreas Papandreou. If you can read in Greek language you can find more info about the Apostasia in the greek Wikipedia at "Αποστασία του 1965". There was a similar argument about how POV is the name but they agreed that it is a formal term that is universally accepted. Arnegjor 14:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Including by Mitsotakis? Adam 14:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Including by Mitsotakis, in a recent interview (2001) he admitted that the apostasia was a big mistake and he has regreted his role then. I'm quoting his words, I'm sorry I don'have time at the moment to translate: "Έχω μετανιώσει, γιατί θα μπορούσα εκείνη την ώρα να δείξω λιγότερη ευαισθησία απέναντι των εξελίξεων και αντί να πάω να ορκιστώ, να πάω στο Καστρί και να κοιτάξω να συμφιλιώσω και πάλι τον Βασιλέα με τον Γεώργιο Παπανδρέου." You can read more at his wikipedia biography. Even his followers call the move apostasia, although respect that Mitsotakis made a mistake to give all the power to Constantine but he didn't expect that this would bring Greece into a political instability. Arnegjor 16:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I will agree with Adam Carr's edits/removals to the article. This is a biographical article after all. Sure the background historical events must be mentioned albeit briefly and with links to articles of their own. Rather than elaborating the Apostasia in this article we should improve the Apostasia of 1965 article and link to that in a brief summary here. Apart from that, I too think that "Apostasia" is the most commonly used term to refer to those events. The fact that the term carries negative connotations is rather irrelevant. But that discussion should take place in the article's talk page. --Michalis Famelis 17:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

However Constantine's effort to gain the absolute control of Greek politics during the "Apostasia" was actually the reason of his exile, even more than his co-operation with the Junta. All greek politics of 1960's are mostly Constantines' responsibility and influence, hence we need to include in his biography. Stevepeterson 20:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What needs to be included is the facts of what happened, not the opinions of various editors about what happened. The article currently has as much detail about these events as is needed in a biographical article. I still think the word "apostasy" is inherently POV. In English it means moving away from the true faith, and thus implicity compares Papandreou to Christ. I assume it has the same meaning in Greek. However, if it is really the accepted term in Greece, I won't argue the point further.

I also still want to delete the paragraph about the nicknames. This whole topic is trivial and hopelessly POV. It adds nothing of value to the article and we are better off without the endless arguments it causes. Adam 00:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know "apostasy" has a strictly religious meaning in English. According to the Papyrus dictionary, "apostasia" can have several different meanings:

1) The earliest meaning translates in English as "revolt, rebellion, insurgence, insurgency, uprising".

2) The religious meaning is attested since Byzantine times and means the rejection of God or Christianity by an already baptized Christian. This was actually considered a legal offence in modern Greece until fairly recently and had actual legal consequences.

3) In modern Greek language apostasia can also mean the defection from one political party to another. Which was probably what was meant in the 1965 case.

4) Another modern use is used in reference to Greek Orthodox priests who choose to reject their priesthood.

Similarly "apostates", a nick-name not unfamiliar to Mitsotakis, can have several different different meanings:

1) An ancient but long outdated meaning was a reference to "the slave who escaped his master", an escapee.

2) A rebel, guerilla, partisan.

3) A person who denies his original religion for another. A religious defector so to speak.

4) Since Early Modern times the term is use with the meaning of an "insubortinate" person.

5) The modern use within the Greek Orthodox Church is in reference who voluntarily reject their priesthood.

6) The modern political use is in reference for a person who rejected one political party or faction for another.

As you can see no one compares Georgios Papandreou to Jesus. The term has a much wider use. User:Dimadick

From Greek απο, apo, "away, apart", στασις, stasis, "standing".

Also derived from Greek αποστάτης, meaning "political rebel", as applied to rebellion against God, its law and the faith of Israel (in Hebrew מרד) in the old testament. 

But anyway, its a formally used term for the period, whatever the word means. I don't think its of our interest to change that.

Also I don't think we should remove that part. Its actualy the only active period, apart from titles, family or whatever others say about him. Stevepeterson 03:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


Constantine refers as "Kokos" or as Glyksboorg, equally and even more often than "Constantine II, formerly King of Greece", regardless if he likes it or not. A good wikipedia article should include these terms to help people who search and only know him with those names. Also Apostasia has indeed some religious meaning but not beause it was against papandreou, but because the apostates supported a violation of the Greek Constitution, as the legally elected Government was dismissed by the King, for him to install a serie of Governments using his people. Even Stefanos Stefanopoulos, Prime Minister of onen of those govs said (23.7.65), sorry for the non-Greek speakers, but I think its better if I use the exact words: «Αυτό το οποίον εγένετο, αποτελεί ΕΓΚΛΗΜΑ κατά του κόμματος, κατά της Δημοκρατίας, κατά των εθνικών συμφερόντων» Also(9.8.65): «ΟΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΣ ΔΙΑΙΡΟΥΝ, είναι αναμφισβήτητον και δεδομένον!». The president of the conservative ERE Kanelopoulos, who had also supported Apostasia and Constantines decisions said: «Το χειρότερον... είναι ότι η απόσπασις των αναγκαίων βουλευτών... έγινε με ΕΞΑΓΟΡΑΝ ΣΥΝΕΙΔΗΣΕΩΝ... με τον υπουργικόν θώκον ή και με άλλα ΑΚΑΤΟΝΟΜΑΣΤΑ ΜΕΣΑ...». So, we can exclude the names of PMs he installed but we can't remove the Apostasia move as a fact (we can find plenty of references for that). His decisions during that period were such an important part of his life that led to the loss of his title, even more important than his co-operation with the Junta, as the Junta was a result of the constitutional crisis and political instability that he caused. If Greek politics of 1960's are not something that he is proud of, it doesn't mean that we have to exluded from his biography. For example Santam Hussain's biography shouldn't exclude what he did during his period of control in Iraq. Arnegjor 14:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


Titles, Kings and the Hellenic Constitution

I think that it is POV to mention that calling Constantine a King upsets the Governments. We can't know what upsets them and, anyway, it makes no difference. The point is that by calling him a 'King of Greece', is to give him an official Hellenic title, and this act shows disregard for the Constitution of Greece. Also check [1]; you will see that there are no titles as, for instance, in some other countries (Sir, King, dukes, etc). He can be duke of a place in countries that support such titles (ex.UK, Denmark...), but he can't call him self duke of Sparta or duke of Myconos because there is no such thing as duke or King or Sir. Svetlyo 09:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think everybody agrees here, so Rastapopoulos should stop reverting or else it will be viewed as vandalism

Whoever wrote this, please use the for tildes to identify yourself. I take pride in the fact that all of my edits are oriented to a more balanced NPOV approach. I feel that were it not for my edits, this article would be very much skewed against Constantine. This is Wikipedia, not a Greek university amphiteater in the mid 1970s! I am not a vandal, unless this is what you wish to call whomever you may disagree with. Rastapopoulos 09:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Anne Maria

there is a small wikireferendum taking place on Constantine's wife's wikiarticle. Some want to move it from Anne-Marie_of_Greece to Queen Anne-Marie of Greece. The result will affect this site also. Stevepeterson 23:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Cause in the vote people claim that both articles should have the official wiki format "title name NameofCountry" Stevepeterson 01:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Prs is 100% correct. It is standard where monarchs have not abdicated but rather been deposed (whether legally by referendum or illegally by coup d'etat) to continue to use their former constitutional title as a courtesy title in the form <name> <ordinal> of <state> for their lifetime but not let anyone else inherit it. (In effect it dies with them.) The form <name> of <state> is exclusive to monarchs. Consorts in their lifetime have their consort title at the start to show that they were a consort, not the monarch. (When they die they then revert to maiden name, because in the absence of an ordinal - number - it becomes messy to continue to use their consort name as others may have had it and there may be confusion.) Anne-Marie of Greece implies she was a reigning monarch (as with Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, etc) whereas Queen Anne-Marie of Greece means queen consort. All the vote on the other page is about is moving Anne-Marie from a current name which implies she was a reigning queen to a form which makes clear she was a consort. It has no implications for this page, except to clean up one of Alexandr's (usual) naming messes. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If only republican revolutionaries would have the good sense to guillotine their deposed monarchs (and their families) rather than send them into exile to make trouble, all this bother could be avoided. Adam 02:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with republican revolutionaries killing monarchs and people who called me Greek republican for removing her title at her biography are missing the point. I'm one of the million honest Greek Royalists who voted in favour of the Monarchy in 1974 but are against this family who did so much bad to Greece and were the reason with their decisions that Greece doesn'ty have a Crown Republic anymore. also even in his latest interview he didn't accept the responsibility of his actions, saying that he was trying his best but the problem was that he had no experience and he was immature. Insteed of taking all responsibility of his decisions, he blamed the Crown Republic system for giving him power at such a young age and exposing Royalists. The referendum should be questioning whether Greeks would like to remove their title then give it to someone else who is smart and not a Kokos-brained. ALEKSANDAR 13:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well that's the essential problem with monarchy as a system of government, isn't it. Whether your head of state is wise or foolish, competent or incompetent, is entirely a matter of luck, and if they turn out to be a fool you have to wait until they die before you can replace them. Or else become a republic, as nearly everyone in the world has done - except here in poor Afstralia where he can't agree on how to do it. Adam 13:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Naming Policy regarding the ex-King's grandchildren

I have raised the subject of how the articles about the ex-King's and ex-Queen's grandchildren (those born after 1974) should by titled. Please share your opinions here. --Michalis Famelis 18:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, all Constantine offspring born after the 1974 plebiscite are not entitled to any Greek Royal titles. Of course, they may well use Danish titles, Danish Law permitting Rastapopoulos 13:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The question is not whether they are entitled to them, but whether they use them. Which they do. This, too, is fairly standard for former royal families. King Michael's daughters were all styled "Princess of Romania;" King Simeon's children are all "Prince/ss of Bulgaria," the former Yugoslav royal family does the same (and their country doesn't even exist anymore! Though, it must be said, they've changed their principal style to "Prince/ss of Serbia, iirc). The German dynasties don't officially use their titles, but effectively do, having attached them to their names. The Orleans's use various courtesy titles, and the generic title "Prince of Orleans." The House of Savoy uses "Prince/ss of Savoy," and various courtesy titles. The House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies uses "Prince /ss of Bourbon-Two Sicilies," and various courtesy titles. The House of Bourbon-Parma uses "Prince/ss of Bourbon-Parma." The Habsburgs still sometimes use "Archduke of Austria," even though they are forbidden by law from doing so in Austria. The Russian Imperial House still uses "Grand Duke/Duchess of Russia." Courtesy titles are also used by the Portuguese royal house - I'm not sure about the generic "Infant/a of Portugal," but I think it is in use. Usually, such use of styles is not sanctioned by the republican governments of the country these people once ruled, and when this is the case, it should be noted. But the basic fact is that our article titles aren't based around what the government of some country says your name is. It is based around what name is most commonly used. And Princess Theodora of Greece and Denmark, &c. are the most commonly used styles for members of the former Greek royal family, including ones born after the monarchy ended. john k 14:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Was there a 'Constantine II of Greece?

Where does the title 'Constantine of Greece' come from? In Greek it would have to be, 'Konstandinos B' tis Elladas' or 'Konstandinos B' Elladas'; that was never the case and it also sounds quite absurd. Could it be that the title is the product of his British links and residence following the restoration of democracy in Greece? Certainly, titles bearing the name of countries come at a premium in England's monarchic circles. Euxaristw Politis 11:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

His title was Constantine II, King of the Hellenes. The title of this article follows the standard Wikipedia naming pattern for monarchs, which was invented by Americans, not Britons. If you want to suggest renaming the article Constantine II, King of the Hellenes, you are free to do so. Adam 11:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It was just a question because I have seen this reference elsewhere. Probably the Americans take their queue from England or Hello magazine. If we select the title you suggest, then we would have to keep all former titles, hence, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States, John Major, Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or Costis Stephanopoulos, President of the Hellenic Republic. Thanks. Politis 12:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No, only monarchs and ex-monarchs are styled in this way. I suggest you learn something about Wikipedia formats before you start making offensive remarks about other editors. Adam 14:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We also have Albert II of Belgium, even though his title is "King of the Belgians." And Wilhelm II of Germany, even though his title was "German Emperor." And Louis Philippe of France, even though his title was "King of the French." It's just a standard way of simplifying, and has nothing to do with Hello magazine that I can see. john k 14:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Winsor is the name of a town, so is Berlin

The former king said that, 'Glücksburg was not a family name but the name of a town, I may as well call myself Mr. Kensington'. I am bafled. In 1917 the British royal family dropped one surname of towns and provinces (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) and adopted the name of a single town, 'Winsor'. If Britain's (German) royals can do it, presumably so can a gentleman who aspires to acquire Greek citizenship. Beside, there are hundreds of respectable people whose surname is 'Kensington'. To conclude, I cannot understand what he meant (and I am not interested). Thanks. Politis 16:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Unwittingly, you answered your own question: "In 1917 the British royal family dropped one surname of towns and provinces (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) and adopted the name the name of a single town, 'Winsor'(sic)".
In Constantine's case, the former Greek royal family did not adopt the name Glücksburg. It was imposed on it, originally by opponents and detractors of constitutional monarchy. My what heroic leap of logic can we expect someone to happily adopt a name that was arbitrarily chosen for him by people hostile to him? Rastapopoulos 06:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This whole topic is extremely boring, petty and irrelevant. Adam 07:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam, I agree on the boring and (especially) the petty part, but I am afraid that it is quite relevant...Rastapopoulos 08:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The current 'status' edit was reached through discsussion and edits by myself and Rastatopoulos. I am happy with the Rastatopoulos edits and presumably he is happy with mine. That is how we proceed in wiki. Thank you for your tolerance and your time. Politis 12:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Politis, bizarre as it may seem, I thing we are getting there :) Rastapopoulos 13:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed! I agree. Politis 14:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Constantine_II_of_Greece/Archive_3&oldid=1136636700"