Talk:Greek royal family

Royal surname

Can somebody tell me what is the official surname of the Greek royal family, please ? I suppose they have a special British passport which indicates something like "HM Constantine of Greece", but I think the royal family got back his Greek rights and nationality, so how are they officially called in their own country ? I guess some Greeks or Hellenist or specialist of the Greek monarchy can answer this question. Thank you. --Cyril-83 10:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is no official family name, and genealogical research in Denmark has shown that the Danish royals have no family name either. The former King travels in Greece with an Italian passport.

Glücksburg was one of the territorial holdings of the Kings of Denmark at the time George I ascended to the throne of Greece, and it was the last one in their official title. A couple of years later Glücksburg was lost to Prussia and now it's part of Germany. As a family name, it was attributed to the Greek royal family as a pejorative by anti-monarchists in the mid 1960s.

Sv1xv (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Glücksburg is still commonly used by left-wing (at least) writers. I think I first came across the term in a novel by Vasilis Kolovos, who has published several books this century, most recently this year (2012). In Greece, Constantine is often referred to as 'Ο Τεος' (the former) which is equally perjorative. Bougatsa42 (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

{EDIT} King Constantine conferred with the Queen of Denmark about what she believed the surname should be, and she replied that it should probably be Oldenburg, if anything at all. At one point, the Greek Republic enacted a statute whereby the surname of the Greek royal family would be Greece, but this was an unpopular solution among the family itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Knighton (talk • contribs) 15:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

NPOV problems

This article creates the impression that the former Greek royal family still exists in some formal sense. I doubt this. In 1974 2/3 of the Greek population voted for abolishment of the monarchy, and it has been a republic ever since. As far as I know the former titles of nobility no longer exist in Greece in any form. But reading this article one would get the impression that Greece is still a monarchy. The 1974 plebiscite is hidden in a section, but even there one gets the impression that it was a merely pro forma thing and Greeks in general are still fans of their former royalty.

I note that none of the royalty fancruft is present in the Greek version of the article (whose title translates as "Greek Royal Family (1863-1974)"). For me this is a huge red flag that there may be some royalist fringe POV pushing going on here.

One obvious example is that the king was in exile during the military regime 1967-1974 and the throne abolished in 1974, but the article presents him (in an image caption) as reigning until 1974 and in exile from then on. Hans Adler 09:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: I just became aware that the article was tagged for this problem already in August 2009, and the tag removed less than a month ago even though the problem was never addressed. [1] Hans Adler 09:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Greek royal family still exists, it is not extinguished. But since the 1974 referendum it is not a reigning royal family. It exists in a formal sense for the other, reigning European royal families who are heads of state, and it is acknowledged as such in their references. However, it has no formal life in Greece itself. Politis (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Then the article needs to make that clear. The title creates the impression that the "Greek Royal Family" has something to do with Greece. If that is not the case, it must be said clearly. A superficial reader of this article will get the impression that Greece is still a monarchy. Wikipedia articles can describe the world views of the fringes of society, but they can't present them in an in-universe style as this article does. Hans Adler 10:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You might be right about the title being misleading, though personally I don't see it, probably because I am fully aware of the historical context and I read it as a historic reference to a once reigning royal family. I cannot think of an alternative title. Politis (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the title is OK, except that the capitalisation seems to be non-standard. But we must be careful to make it clear in the article that the associations evoked by the title are not quite correct, as nowadays the family is neither royal nor Greek. For example, the claim that the members of the family hold certain titles would normally be understood to mean that they do so according to Greek law. If it is not Greek law but Italian law, British law or just as a courtesy, then that should be stated clearly.

But the recent edits were a good start towards fixing this problem. I apologise for just criticising and not being much help. I feel a bit handicapped editing this article because I can't find any sources about the status of the family since Greece became a republic.

An unrelated issue is that this article unnecessarily lists a lot of living people, many of whom appear to be not notable at all. I simply cannot believe that we have an article on a 6-year old child who is not known for having done anything or holding any special position etc. This BLP article is, and will no doubt remain over the next few years, unsourced. (The most we could hope for would be a Gotha entry or a short mention in connection with the parents, but certainly not the kind of in-depth reporting that is required to establish notability.) This child should not be mentioned here either, and much less the 2-year old child. This kind of information is not encyclopedic and it is potentially harmful to the children. I will try to address this. Hans Adler 17:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Greek constitution does not recognise any title of nobility. The titles of King and Prince are not noble title, they are Royal titles which are entirely different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.176.104 (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the experts and the practice. The Greek Royal Family is both Royal and Greek. The former King still lives, and uses his title. I think you are confusing formal and official, although in a sense they are both formally and officially Greek and Royal. True the His Majesty's citizenship is in limbo, but is that not addressed here? You are the one putting forth the fringe opinion. Tinynanorobots (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

A King without a Kingdom is not a King. The titles are bestowed by the state. The approach "L'État, c'est moi" belongs to the 17th century, not to the 21st century. 69.42.153.170 (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Title

The title give the impression that the Glucksberg family is still the royal family of Greece. The Greek edition is titled Ελληνική Βασιλική Οικογένεια (1863-1974), i.e Greek Royal Family (1863-1974). Is there any reason that will appeal to the discerning for not following suit? Bougatsa42 (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Many people listed here as members of the Greek Royal Family were born after 1974, some several decades after. If the title is to be changed, the scope should follow, and that would probably require an RfC. Surtsicna (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter if they are no longer reigning. We still have articles titled 'Royal Family' for families that are no longer reigning their respective countries, such as the Brazilian Imperial Family and Bulgarian royal family. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, none of those families are royal families any more. They are commoners. None of their members hold royal titles of their former realms. WP giving the impression that it is otherwise is highly unencyclopedic. ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• They are still the royal family, whether they have power or not is totally irrelevant. The monarchy may be deposed, a revolutionary council may have declared it abolished and it may have no standing in its home country but it does not change the fact that they are still the same royal family and have claim to the titles they still use in exile. To say otherwise is actually unencyclopedic and simply left wing propaganda. Most former monarchies still use titles and honours dating back to their time in power, the Greek royal family is no exception. This article makes it very clear in the first line that they only ruled in Greece between 1863 to 1924 and again from 1935 to 1973. I can't see who clearer you can make it without sticking the word exiled in front of it "The exiled Greek Royal Family...". As for the article name itself, it is correctly named in accordance with WP:Common name, they are still overwhelming referred to as the Greek Royal Family. Regarding the dates question, you would only put dates on the article name to distinguish it from an identically named article but which has a different time period WP:NCNUM. The contents also comply with WP:NCROY where it clearly says that "former or deposed monarchs should be referred to by their previous monarchical title" ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 21:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Greece is a republic. There is no monarch and no royal family and no legally valid claims to any titles. The former king and his living family are now commoners. Greece alone makes that determination, not policies and editors of an internet encyclopedia. The same applies to numerous other countries, e.g. Austria. With articles like these WP is deliberately spreading false information about the legal status of people (who may also be in the scope of WP:BLP). WP is supposed to describe the world objectively, not re-interpret it. Please do not use policies to make WP unencyclopedic. ♆ CUSH ♆ 23:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah this is where we enter the murky legal world of de jure vs de facto (by right vs by fact). The King was the King and then he was ousted from power, therefore the current Republic does not get its authority from the previous Royalist Constitution or from the King, therefore legally speaking it was created though treasonous means... the argument used by many former rulers (now in exile) is that by right they are still the legitimate authority and the new republics are illegitimate. This is why they all still claim their titles and positions, even though in fact they have no position in their home counties... WP like everyone else therefore follows normal reference to these things. They will always be the royal family of Greece by right of their former position in Greece... WP is not doing anything wrong and is not incorrect in the way it treats it.

The same issue applies even in non-royal situation, take for example Crimea where Russia invaded back in 2014 and now controls it de facto as the Republic of Crimea, but also using a referendum in Apr-14 as it’s de jure right. However Ukraine sees the annexation and referendum as unconstitutional and claims the area is “occupied”. Ukraine still claims it to be its de jure territory. There are many many more examples, such as the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the Peoples Republic of China. Same with places like South Ossetia where Georgia clams it by right and the Republic of South Ossetia actually control it. The idea that a government gets its authority from the people is a relatively new idea and in many countries actually legally wrong. A case in point being Catalan in Spain, where 80% of the people voted for independence in the 2014 referendum which the Spanish government demand unconditional.

WP is not spreading false information and it is actually describing the world very objectively, it has neutral articles on all sides of every conflict. WP is an encyclopedia and its policies are designed to ensure it continues as one, just because you have taken a very narrow de facto legal position in Greece which does not take account of the wider situation or any de jure positions does not mean it is unencyclopedic. The article clearly shows in the very first line that they only ruled in Greece between 1863 to 1924 and again from 1935 to 1973. Feel free to expand the Present Status section for example to describe there current legal position in Greece if you so wish, but please ensure you provide valid WP:references. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 19:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Suppose Greece chooses to reinstate the monarchy but with the crown held by a different family, say of Italian royalty. What are we to do then? Would we have two articles in Wikipedia, both titled "Greek Royal Family," one for the former royals, and another for the current Italian royals? Or would we then change the title here from "Greek Royal Family" to something else? Disambiguation beckons! -The Gnome (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The de facto and de jure separation is useful when there is some legal dispute about the status of something, where legally it has a different status than in reality. In this case though, the Greek royal family is neither de jure nor de facto a royal family anymore. They have no kingdom to rule, and nobody recognizes their royal status as royal family of Greece. They are possibly members of the Danish royal family, if the Danish state recognizes and confers them the titles of "Prince of Denmark" or "Princess of Denmark". I strongly doubt that Denmark confers them the title "Prince of Denmark and Greece". 69.42.153.170 (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't alter the fact that they were 'once' a royal family, similar to the Bulgarian royal family, Romanian royal family, Brazilian imperial family, etc. The only thing that matters is the wording within the article's body, which makes it 100% clear that this family is not reigning in Greece at the moment. Keivan.f^Talk 03:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC for the article's title

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The RfC is closed by the nominator, pending the result of the ongoing debate about a general, and not country-specific, rule in the appropriate project-page. The Gnome (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

---

This is about the title of this page. 1. Should we KEEP it as "Greek royal family"? or 2. Should we CHANGE it into "House of Glücksburg, Greece"?

Background: Families which currently rule as monarchs over a nation are denoted in Wikipedia as "royal families" of the respective nation. (Examples: British royal family for the United Kingdom; Swedish royal family for Sweden; Norwegian royal family for Norway; Spanish royal family for Spain; and so on. Note that Wikipedia recognizes the House of Bourbon-Anjou as the Spanish royal family, since that is the royal family currently on the throne of Spain, despite the significant existence of supporters of a separate line of the Bourbon dynasty.)

On the other hand, families which have historically ruled as monarchs over a nation in the past are denoted as "houses of [dynasty title]". (Examples: House of Savoy, for Italy; House of Romanov for Russia; the House of Habsburg for Austria; and so on. Note that, in France, there are at least four families contesting the currently non-existent throne: the House of Bourbon; the House of Orléans; the House of Bonaparte; and the Capetian dynasty.)

• Change per standard, universally applied Wikipedia practice. The justification for the current title is based on the royally defined notion of "once a royal, always a royal," irrespective of historical developments. The change aims to avoid the typical, political noise that results from the use of royal titles when no realm exists, de jure or de facto. If the title is indeed changed, we could add a "see main article" notice under the section on "Greece" in the article "House of Glücksburg". -The Gnome (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC), RfC originator

• Comment Just noting that I don't think all previously royal families are named as houses, for instance Romanian royal family. No comment on this particular case. Thank you, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Romania along with Greece seem to be the sole exceptions, GreyGreenWhy. See my answer below to GoodDay. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I think I agree with the nominator in this case; however, I feel pretty strongly that this is a conversation for the talkpage at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). NickCT (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you're right, NickCT. I'm starting an invitation for opinions in that page. Let's put this here on hold for the time being, I'd say. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep it at the common name. Wikipedia should follow general practice of reliable sources, not set new precedents or use unfamiliar or rare forms. DrKay (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@DrKay: Could you please explain on what basis do you claim that the term "Greek royal family" is the "common name" for the family of the former Greek monarch? The most common name for a family, any family, is the family name, one would presume. In any case, the proposal certainly is not trying to set "new precedents" nor does it aim for "unfamiliar or rare forms"; the practice of naming articles as proposed is already widely extant in Wikipedia. Perhaps you missed the examples I provided in the text of the proposal. -The Gnome (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't be disingenuous. "Greek royal family" is clearly more common than "House of Glucksburg, Greece" using any means of comparison. DrKay (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The means of comparison I'm using is common practice. That'd be the way the family of former King Constantine is denoted more commonly in media considered to be reliable sources in Greece. The notations "Greek royal family" or "royal family of Greece" are used faithfully by monarchists, the royals themselves, social media (with exceptions), and gossip media. It seems that the most common notation is to precede mentions of the term "royal family " by the adjective "former" or the preposition "ex-". But I'm not proposing such a notation. (And do spare us the personal invective, dear Wikipedia administrator, will you?) -The Gnome (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to prevent "personal invective", then using it yourself isn't the way to go about it. DrKay (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You wrote above that I'm being "disingenuous" (your term). That constitutes personal invective and I politely pointed it out to you. Pointing it out is not, of course, the same as personal invective. And since a hint won't do, I will remind you explicitly that as a Wikipedia administrator, someone "the community ha[s] chosen based on experience and trust," you are supposed to "have consistently good standards on general conduct as editor." -The Gnome (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you didn't politely point out. You were deliberately snarky. DrKay (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, seeing as we've got Romanian royal family, British royal family, Spanish royal family, etc. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Greetings. From the examples you gave, GoodDay, all but Romania continue to have monarchies.

Here is some background: In 2006, an article was created with the title "Romanian royal family"; the history of the article exemplifies the kind of politically motivated disagreements that can result from such nomenclature. The article about the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen of Romania was a separate, stand-alone article, created in 2011. Then, in 2016, an editor merged the latter into the former. -The Gnome (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Un-merge them. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the merger should have gone the opposite way: The article "royal family" should have been merged into "Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen of Romania". Recreating now two separate articles with the same content makes no sense. The history of the Romanian throne is unlike the history of the British throne. -The Gnome (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

References

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.

RfC for the article's title, part II

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The majority of submitted opinions being that the title of the article should not be amended, this RfC is closed with a consensus to Keep. -The Gnome (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

---

(The RfC about articles concerning former ruling families in monarchies, in general, ended without any change in the rules. Following that outcome, the temporarily closed RfC about this specific article is reopened.)

The title of the article does not seem to conform to the rule about articles' names. To remind ourselves of the pertinent passage in the rule, here it is: "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the [naming] criteria. ... Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."

The name most commonly used by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources is "the former royal family of Greece" (or equivalent expressions, such as "former royal household"). Typical such citations can be found in the BBC (e.g. here); Washington Post (here); the National Herald (here); CBC News (here); the Daily Telegraph, UK (here); the Daily Telegraph, Australia (here); The Guardian (here); all the English-language online editions of newspapers, magazines, and other media in Greece (e.g. here, here, or here). Plus, all English Wikipedia articles concerning members of the family (e.g. about Constantine II of Greece or Tatoi Palace) use the term "former".

The historical, official appellation is used mostly by fringe royalist organizations, media, and political parties (e.g. The Greek Royal Family; Royal Forums; Royal Correspondent; etc) or gossip magazines, such as Hello (see here) or Life & Style (e.g. here).

It is suggested that the title of this article changes accordingly.

1. Change it to Former Greek Royal Family? or
2. Keep it unchanged?

Your views are invited. -The Gnome (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Change in accordance with common nomenclature. -The Gnome (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Change in accordance with common nomenclature and current legal status of the subject. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep in accordance with common nomenclature as the evidence linked in this RfC clearly supports its current name, Greek Royal Family and shows that they are still called either Greek Royal Family or the Royal Family of Greece. The authors of these specific articles have simply placed the word "former" or "exiled" as descriptive terms as part of the paragraph of words around it, no different to adding "The…" in front of it or for that matter any other words. It’s not part of the name itself and therefore in accordance with WP common name policy it should stay as it is. I also disagree with Cush's comment above that it should reflect the "current legal status" in the republic of Greece, it is not for WP to take sides in any legal dispute. In fact under WP:NCROY WP takes the normal neutral position for deposed monarchs that they be "referred to by their previous monarchical title" unless they have a common name which is different. We should apply that same principle here, the common name as proved by The Gnome above is the same as the original monarchical style and the same as the current name of the article i.e. "Greek Royal Family". ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 12:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"Royal family" and "former royal family" cannot be made equivalent, no matter how hard we may try. :-) The term "former" is as much descriptive of the noun "family" as the term "royal", so they are linguistically and syntactically equal. The WP:NCROY guideline refers to individual monarchs, not families. And it explicitly defers to the rule about article names in general, i.e. "It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English...but there are other things which should be considered: ease of use, precision, concision, and consistency among article titles." As to the sources in the RfC, they were introduced here as examples of the commonly used terms former royal family of Greece or variants thereof. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Agree on the issue of the legal status: Wikipedia should never take sides. The RfC outcome must be decided on the basis of WP rules and within WP's framework. -The Gnome (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Change in accordance with common nomenclature. Comatmebro (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Per WP:COMMONNAME: google searches show "Greek royal family"4,660 news items4,800 books is far more common than "former Greek royal family"7 news hits176 books. DrKay (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, seeing as we have Romanian royal family & Bulgarian royal family, to name a few. These articles already have it explained, that their respective countries have abolished the respective monarchies. Note: I do understand the nominators reason for want to change article titles in these situations. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Searching for simply "Greek royal family" also includes mentions of the family with the qualifier "former". The term used by sources is not just "former Greek royal family" but also "former royal family of Greece", the "former Greek royals", the "ex-royals", the "deposed royal family", and so on. Searching, for example, for the specific term "Greek royal family" but cutting off texts with mentions of the term "former", decreases the hits quite significantly. Nonetheless, mere numerical accountancy won't do; we need to qualify the sources. I already pointed out that the vast majority of hits concern media and websites that are either fringe/royalist ones or tabloids and mags, such as Hello! (as evidenced also by the search results kindly provided by DrKay). If such sources are what is now considered reliable in Wikipedia, I must have missed the memo. -The Gnome (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, seeing as we have Romanian royal family & Bulgarian royal family, to name a few. These articles already have it explained, that their respective countries have abolished the respective monarchies. Note: I do understand the nominators reason for want to change article titles in these situations. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The RfC is not political nor ideological. There are no "hidden" reasons here. Whether or not the monarchy has been "abolished" in a country does not matter! This has been settled in the general RfC I linked above.(Here is the link again.) We are to decide on a case-by-case basis; so, now, we are discussing strictly the case of Greece and nothing else. All else is irrelevant. The overarching rule is WP:COMMONNAME and on that basis this RfC is conducted. Please review the rule and the evidence. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It's an interesting question, though. Can a republic have a 'pretense' royal family? GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep I feel that keeping it at its current name per the aboves is the best option. Former can be made into a redirect (Summoned by bot) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep in line with the understanding that the most recent royal family is usually called simply the royal family, such as the case of Imperial Russia. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the way the House of Romanov is denoted in most third-party, reliable sources is precisely as such: The House of Romanov; the term "imperial family" is mostly found in texts in descriptive context and not as an appellation. We have to be very careful about sources! Someone above, quite innocently, made a wholesale google run for it but as we all know google does not differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources. As of yet. :-) Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep – As others have demonstrated, it's a common convention for the last royal family of a country which now doesn't have one to simply be called its royal family, Royal family#Deposed royal families.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 16:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I see quantity weighs more than quantity in this debate. I keep correcting the same kind of mistake over and over and over but online half-life apparently increases rather than decreases! Newbiepedian provided a link to the list of "Deposed royal families" and, reading the list, one gets the impression that, yep, "it's common convention for the last royal family of a country which now doesn't have one to simply be called its royal family". Well, that is false.

Clicking on each family's wikilink reveals the reality; they're all redirects. "Austro-Hungarian imperial family" takes us to the article "House of Habsburg". "Baroda royal family" to "Gaekwad dynasty". "Mysore Royal Family" to "Wadiyar dynasty". "Bavarian royal family" to "House of Wittelsbach". "Egyptian royal family" to "Muhammad Ali dynasty". "Ethiopian imperial family" to "Solomonic dynasty". "Hessian Grand Ducal Family" (?) to "List of rulers of Hesse". "Italian royal family" to "House of Savoy". "Iranian Imperial family" to "Pahlavi dynasty". "Jodhpur royal family" to "Jodhpur State" (!) itself. Korean imperial family" to "House of Yi". And so on and so forth.

Only the articles on the former monarchical families of Bulgaria, Greece, Laos, and Romania still have in their title the description "royal family" and without the qualifier "former". (Which is evidently for reasons specific to each set of circumstances, as acknowledged in the pertinent rule.) Out of 28 entries, only 4 are listed according to the way described. That's a very low 15 percent, for whatever that's worth. Once again, I invite participants to assess the proposal on the basis of rules & evidence. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• keep 'former' is an adjective, not part of the proper name. Hence the lack of capitalization of 'former'. Why is there even an RfC on this? Cesdeva (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)>

Adjectives and all kinds of forms can and often do constitute parts of names; moreover of titles, e.g. "former world champion." We are looking at how the specific family is mentioned in most reliable, third-party sources in the English language, according to WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME. The most common name of that family in the media appears to be "former royal family". Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

If you look at this National Herald article you'll see that 'in exile' is used instead, which contrasts with 'once upon a time' and 'former' used in this other National Herald article. Given the common denominator is 'Greek royal family', the implication is that 'former' and 'in exile' etc are being used as descriptions separate from the proper name. Also see this BBC article for use of 'in exile'. Same implication. Cesdeva (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The qualifier "in exile" is used in the article to indicate that Prince Philip's family were already in exile when he was an infant. Let's consult Wikipedia: "...He was born in Greece, but his family was exiled from the country when he was an infant." It is not a reference to the current status of the family of former royals. By the way, that specific Greek American newspaper, despite its history of anti-royalism before WWII, has turned pro-royal. As I said many times already, the only consistent appearance of the notation "royal family" appears in royalist and extreme right media, both being fringe but numerous, and gossip magazines. Nothing new there, but, as I see, WP:COMMONNAME has become irrelevant. -The Gnome (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is a great policy, i'm not disagreeing with its relevance. WP:IGNORE and WP:BURO are also good reading. For balance i'm linking The Telegraph, a more conservative RS. It doesn't use 'former' in this article. I think we have to be wary of not giving undue weight to socialist-leaning RS Cesdeva (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the exposition ("socialist-leaning", etc). Unfortunately, this RfC probably won't be decided, by the looks of it, on the basis of what's been revealed but by numbers. Now, to the policy about "ignoring the rules of Wikipedia": The policy qualifies rule violations quite severely: We can break the rules if and only if breaking them means improving Wikipedia! And the burden of proof falls upon us; otherwise, we are punished. Up to you, then, to demonstrate how breaking the rules in the case of this article improves Wikipedia. You see, WP:COMMONNAME, it is not just a "great policy"; it's the relevant policy in our case. Upon it a decision is supposed to be made. We cannot "ignore" it. -The Gnome (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I cited WP:IGNORE to try and politely hint that perhaps if you spent more time addressing the specific points raised (rather than repeating WP:COMMONAME ad nauseum) the debate might move in unexpected and fruitful directions. Many editors will change their votes in debates but not when the air is thick with condescention. Kind regards, Cesdeva (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

There has been no "condescension" on my part. And I did address every point raised in the discussions. What you see as "condescension" is me pointing out agendas here. (To re-point them: "socialist-leaning", etc.) I keep at explaining my position even though I do not hold high hopes of convincing people who contribute on the basis of their political beliefs rather than Wikipedia's rules. Anyway, it's not such a big deal. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Personally, the term "former Greek royal family" implies that they've been superseded by a new one. Katechon08 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe English is not your first or second language, but that is not what the word "former" implies. It says that the family in question no longer is the Greek royal family and has been removed from that status. The current erroneous title of this article on the other hand implies that the family in question is currently the Greek royal family, which in reality it is not. The only member of that family currently holding any royal status is Sophia of Spain ♆ CUSH ♆ 00:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Princes and princesses of Denmark are royal. DrKay (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep 'former' is an adjective and it attaches to either the noun (family) or to the proper noun (Gk Royal family) and therefore the natural interpretation is either that they have ceased to be a family, or that possibly they have been superceded in the role of 'Gk royal family'. In a sense what is intended is 'formerly royal', ie that they no longer reign. That is more easily made clear in text than by using a - somewhat clumsy - adjective in the title. 'Former Democrat President Obama', means something different from 'formerly Democrat President Trump'. So long as the opening sentence is quite clear that this family no longer reigns in Greece, I see no need for the qualifier. The use of the unqualified 'Royal' is sufficiently common and is probably the simplest description of the family that has historically provided kings of Greece, and the only family to still have any claim to the Gk throne (in the unlikely event of the monarchy being restored there). I'm not much of a royalist, and especially sceptical about much of the quasi-mystical hoo-hah associated with monarchy, but this seems the simplest and clearest solution. They ARE the royal family in the sense that they are the family that has provided kings and claimants to the throne, they aren't in the sense that they don't actually rule, but the term is sufficiently widely used of this and other royal families for readers to understand that not all royals actually rule. If they formally renounced all claims and titles, the change might be appropriate. Pincrete (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors do not determine or dictate the political system of Greece. They may describe it accurately but not insert their own views that are not based on WP:RS. Greece is not a monarchy. It has no royal family. Greece alone defines the legal status of the members of the family at issue. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cush As the initiator of the RfC, I've made it clear time and again that this is not and should not be about politics or ideology. The RfC must be decided on the basis of Wikipedia's rules. I cannot make it more clear than I already have. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules aim at describing reality accurately, including the actual politics of the Hellenic Republic, not at making stuff up based on some weird fascination with historical circumstances. Do not use the letters of the rules against the spirit of the rules. The Constitution of the Hellenic Republic is the WP:RS most relevant here. The tabloids still calling members of the Glücksburgs the "royal family of Greece" are not valid sources. ♆ CUSH ♆ 06:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I hope you haven't forgotten that I'm the initiator of the proposal to change the title to "former Greek royal family". :-) I know all that needs to be known about the constitutional regime of Greece, the history of the throne, and the current situation. But we cannot bypass the rules - and the rule here focuses on how this family is more often called in what we call "reliable sources". No adjudication about politics! That's the rule, its letter, and its spirit. By that rule, and only by that rule, the title of this article should be changed per the proposal. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pincrete A development whereby the family renounces claims to the throne of Greece matters very little, if at all! If they renounce their royal status and most reliable sources call them "Greek royal family", then WP:COMMONNAME obliges us to keep the article's title as it is right now. This is not about the legalities of a family's claims to the throne but about Wikipedia nomenclature. -The Gnome (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Might be appropriate, is the meaning of the word 'might' clear? Apart from anything else, renouncing titles might lead to them being generally referred to in new terms, (btw I haven't mentioned the legitimacy of their claim!)Pincrete (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't follow, sorry. You say the "legitimacy of their claim" to the throne is not among your criteria/concerns. But you have stated that "if they formally renounced all claims and titles, the change [in the article's title] might be appropriate." Isn't this an implicit consideration of the legitimacy? A legitimate claim to the throne presumes that they still claim it! Renouncing the claim completely changes the legitimacy of the claim. The Constitution of Greece is quite clear (and actually supports my proposal) but I must stick with the overarching rule of WP:COMMONNAME. That's the rule we have to go by, and it's a damn fine one in my view. The majority of reliable sources have them as "former Greek royal family." Take care. The Gnome (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

"The majority of reliable sources have them as "former Greek royal family." Actually that is much less clear than you claim. One of the sources that you claim uses the term actually says "former royal household", which is not the same thing as it refers to the 'retinue' and 'palaces' as much as to the family. Another one omits 'former' on two occasions and then uses it on third usage. Others use terms like 'in exile', but assuming that every form of words that points out that they neither reign nor live in Greece (which is of course necessary for the sources and us), is synonymous with treating 'former' as their commonname is a bit 'iffy' IMO. Both terms are common, therefore the only consideration is whether the addition is necessary or indeed any clearer. Pincrete (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC) ... ps the Gk constitution (as an expression of the wishes of the Gk people), will clearly be the sole factor in whether they ever rule again in Greece (unless we imagine the King arriving with his private army in Athens!). But the Gk constitution has absolutely F*** ALL bearing on how the family is referred to in the Eng language. For someone who criticises 'legal' arguments which, I for one have certainly not used, you seem happy to use 'legalistic' arguments yourself! Pincrete (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

You're getting upset for no reason, Pincrete. I did not use "legalistic" arguments first first because I did not use "legalistic" arguments at all! (Unless, we consider using the rules of Wikipedia as "legalistic" arguments, in which case I'd beg to differ and we shall disagree.) The point you're making about the Greek constitution is still not clear. As far as I'm concerned, I happen to agree with you that the exact nature of the political regime is expressed by the constitution, and I also agree that what the Greek constitution says has nothing to do with our discussion or the RfC. I'm not sure as to what the big fuss is about. -The Gnome (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Just a small remark from what little I know from the amazing world of constitutional politics: If the King arrives tomorrow with his private army in Athens and declares the re-establishment of the monarchy with him as king, then that may well be against "the wishes of the people" but the new constitution and the new political order, as faits accomplis, will be ex-post legal both domestically and internationally: The new regime will be recognized by other countries and the laws that it will pass will remain in force until (if and when) they are annulled. Most laws from the time of the Greek dictatorship (1967-74) are still in place; but when the regime fell, its leaders were tried for treason and received the death penalty. Vae victis! :-) Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2018 (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.

court decision sourcing

Ipeirotis, in this edit, seeks to address my concern that the added reference doesn't actually link to the alleged court decision, but to a self-published site that includes a passing mention of this court decision. What is needed is a direct link to the decision, or a full citation of the decision, and not a link to the family's own site. ~TPW 16:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I tried to link directly to the decision at http://www.adjustice.gr/webcenter/portal/ste/ypiresies/nomologies but unfortunately the website does not allow for deep linking. I added the pertinent text of the decision in the text as a note, also clarifying that the decision is not directly applicable to members of the family born after 1974. Ipeirotis (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, the main reason that I add pointers to the self-published website of the family is to stop the edit wars by various editors that seem to be "βασιλικοτεροι του Βασιλέως / more Catholic than the Pope himself" in removing any references to "former", "deposed" etc. Hopefully, after they see that the family accepts the legitimacy of the descriptors "former", they will stop removing them. Ipeirotis (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Proper Translation in Greek

A quick search on Google news for the phrases "βασιλική οικογένεια τησ ελλάδας" (3,220 results) vs "ελληνικη βασιλική οικογένεια" (413 results) shows that the former is a more common term. Removing the "πρωην / τέως" modifier is not appropriate for the Greek translation: Not only the term is adopted by the family itself, but its removal (in Greek) has a direct non-NPOV flavor, implying that the current government is illegitimate. Ipeirotis (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Original research

@JayBeeEll If you are not willing to come up with a policy-based reason for reverting my edit, then you are just WP:STONEWALLING. Also "rv monarchist silliness" is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia does not permit original research and all contents must be explicitly stated by the RS. Any RS that does not mention the article subject has no relevance here. The WP:ONUS is on you to give a valid -policy-based justification for inclusion of any content. StellarHalo (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The relevant policies are WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE: we don't go around reporting what climate science deniers say without giving it the necessary context (that they are wrong), and we don't go around writing about the supposed royal families of republics without giving the appropriate context. (And of course WP:EDITWAR.) You are welcome to solicit additional opinions (e.g., from WT:ROYALTY). --JBL (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE, neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.

Also per WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence.

Also per WP:NOR, to demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.

Whether or not a viewpoint is considered WP:FRINGE is based on prominence in coverage by reliable sources not what you personally believe based on original research. You cannot assume that the viewpoints of the government or those implied by laws are the mainstream positions. If you cannot present a viewpoint without engaging in WP:OR, then that viewpoint is in fact the fringe one and should not be included.

Sources that do not talk about the subject specifically are very much WP:UNDUE for use in the article of that subject.

Furthermore and more importantly, you have not even bothered to address violations of Wikipedia:No original research and WP:SYNTH. You are trying to use sources that do not even mention the article subject to make new original analysis about it. You are welcome to add materials about the legal status of a family or a title of a person(s) but all the sources used must explicitly support the conclusions stated by the materials you want to add. Also, the materials must meet the WP:WEIGHT requirement by being supported by multiple RS specifically addressing the subject of the article in question. You cannot just cite a law or an article in a constitution to make a conclusion about anything or anyone not explicitly mentioned in those sources. Wikipedia is not a legal document.

Reverting my policies-based removals twice without first gaining consensus when it is on you to address the WP:OR inclusion concerns while refusing to adhere to WP:AGF means you are the one POV-pushing and edit-warring. I did not even mention anything about monarchy in my edit summaries but you insist on making claims about my motive.

Last but not least, this article is not even claiming that the article subject is legally recognized as "royal" or has titles legally recognized by any government. The same goes for the Prince Christian of Hanover article. In other words, without WP:OR materials, these articles are not making a legal claim. StellarHalo (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Leaving aside the policy argument, I'm not clear what exactly is the substantive difference between the two of you (despite seeing the reverting). @StellarHalo: is it that you you are saying that royal titles such as Prince of Greece are permissible under Greek law and that's why you want the text out? DeCausa (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)