Jump to content

Talk:King of the Gypsies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled]

[edit]

This article brings together knowledge acquired on the periphery of my main research interests. I thought it would be useful to bring together many disparate references, and some which refer to people who may not have been called King of the Gypsies but were clearly very similar in role to people who had. There is insufficient space to investigate the social and political context in which it used, though in some cases it is obvious. Most of these would not justify an article on their own, cross-referenced to a category. I have included clearly fictional characters because they inform the context. My main knowledge is Britain. I am aware that in a wider context sections need expanding. I am aware of the Gypsy/Roma issue. As this is an article recording history, not a current work of sociology I think it is right to use the term as used at the time. GBH 14:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a lot of help. For one, Travelers are not Roma. So it makes little sense to lump what appear to be Roma leaderships and Traveler leadership all together under the title King of the Gypsies. For example, Bartley Gorman was decidedly not Roma at all and his title 'King of the Gypsies' seems to have had nothing to do with leadership in anything other than brawling. --Geofferic (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retitle

[edit]

Some gramaticle edits are needed, but I'll tend to those myself. In a few cases it's hard to tell what the author was trying to say, so additional refernces may be needed.

I would also move to have this page retitled, as only a few of the individuals mentioned were called —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.213.251.31 (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please do NOT retitle. The referral of the heads of 'gypsie' clans at 'Kings' or 'Queens' has a history to it, in a large number of countries. There are also more that can be included as the article grows. As well, the titles you suggest are racist stereotypes. While there have been criminal elements regarging various 'gypsy' clans, it would be no more accurate than saying all Italians were connected to the mafia. AGF and all. -- Kavri 11:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author I was not trying to say anything, just to record what I knew, and provide an opportunity for those who know more to add - that's what Wikipedia is all about.

There is a history of cross cultural use of 'King of The Gypsies', or perhaps use by a sub culture within larger cultures. 'Kings of Thieves' and 'Lords of Missrule' are not the same; they have specific different meanings, unrelated to 'King of the Gypsies'. GBH 19:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please keep article

[edit]

I ran across this article when taking stock of what information on the 'Gypsies' was in Wikipedia. There are a number of articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsies which also includes links to articles on each sub-group, as does the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma_People

I hope that in fixing the issue with the template that the article can be kept...while it needs a lot of work, it adds further information to the other articles. As well, there is an article on Peter Maas, who wrote "King of the Gypsies" and it has a great deal of information in it regarding the "Gypsies" in the United States, including the 'Kings' and 'Queens'.

I hope to do some work on all the above articles, and have an excellent resource book for the topic as well. -- Kavri 11:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bluebeard - Yes & No

[edit]

Both recents edits are right and wrong. There was no pirate "Bluebeard", though there was a "Blackbeard" (Edward Teach), who is sometimes mistakenly called Bluebeard. There was pirate "Barbe-Bleu" which would translate to Bluebeard, but is and should be left in the original French. Neither of these had anything to do with this Bluebeard who, so far as I am aware appears nowhere else. GBH 16:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bluebeard is a fictional character, likely modeled after Gilles de Rais. --Geofferic (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page

[edit]

I have added web content to this page, it is great for Romany history with links to other Romany artciles on wikipedia. 81.159.142.251 (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Keep page

[edit]

I have added web content to this page, I have added web content to the 'Don Adams' fighter, with real footage of the fight between him and Roy Shaw.Diamonddannyboy (talk)

Real Gypsies has no king

[edit]

Nane Rom romanedyr vavre Romen!!! RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the originater of this article I agree - the point is well-made, and the evidence seems to suggest that in the sense of a heriditary monarch it is correct. Wikipedia is about presenting factual material neutrally. There are many questions about the exact relationship between "gypsies" and "Rom"; the two are not exactly the same.GBH (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The story stating Johnnie Faa who received the letter from King James, granting him the power and title of 'King of Scottish Gysies, and then running off with the Countess is incorrect. It was Sir John Faa, grandson of the first Gypsy King mentioned who ran off with the Countess of Cassilis, was caught by her husband and along with the two remaining Gypsy aids. Some historians believe Jean Hamilton and Sir John were alerady married, a story I believe to be true after all the research I have read over the years. Sir John was half brother to Mary Queen of Scots, and it was through King James' affair with John Faa's sister Estre, that he gave John Faa the power he granted. Sir John was a wealthy and handsome man, and he and Jean had been in love for a long while. It was her father that arranged the marriage with the old Count of Cassilis, and that's how the plot to run away was hatched. The Count made Jean stand at the window which overlooked the 'Dule' tree where the three men were hanged. This incident is the basis of the old folk song, 'Three Gypsies stood at the Castle gate'. As for Gypsies not having any King or Queen. Every group has a leader, and John Faa was the leader in Scotland, although the Faa family were not of Gypsy blood. They were originally from Wales, Celts, but had moved north to escape foreign invaders, and the Faa's--or Fawr family date back to the early Kings of Wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.223.109 (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you have never realized that romanies in the UK took British names in order to sound less foreign, so tracing the Faa name back to Wales proves nothing. The English names Boswell, West, Marshall originat in England or the Norman Conquest so are you assuming the Marshall romanichels are French-norse? The Faa family are romanies they took names in the areas they arrived in including the borders of Scotland where the name Faa was common.Uthican (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it matters, but to me it does, the gypsi's (sinti and roma) did have actual kings (at least the roma) , the more common Roma in north west europe still do. He is just "the king of gypsie's", i think the article would be more complete with that reference.24.132.170.97 (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in section Bulgaria

[edit]

The section about Bulgaria gypsy king seems to be pure vandalism. This "citation needed" is funny there. Please, just remove the whole section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.249.136 (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Tyson Fury

[edit]

Tyson Fury is the undisputed Gypsy King in England, in the UK, in the World in 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.128.160.99 (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on King of the Gypsies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Informations

[edit]

Unfortunately, some people, especially non-Roma, do not want precise information. You want to maintain clichés. The Roma per se do not exist, there are various Roma groups that differ so greatly in language, religion and culture. The different groups in the article must be taken into account. Each group has its own Romano Ray (King). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talkcontribs) 11:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nalanidil: Whatever you claim to know about different groups of Roma, you cannot change what the sources say, especially in a direct quote. Example: The court record from Old Bailey here says alias King of the Gypsies. If you change the quote to say "alias king of the Romanichal Gypsies", you are falsifying the quote, creating a dishonest claim. Another example: The younger members of the Karoli family in Norway did not just claim to be "King of Norway Gypsies" or "King of All Norway Gypsies in The World". Their claim was to be "King of One Million Gypsies" and "King of All Gypsies in The World". Even if their claim was ridiculous, we just cannot change what they actually claimed. That would be not just dishonest, but a direct lie. --T*U (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


The difference between christian and muslim roma groups needs to be emphasized. Because we have nothing in common, except discrimination by non-Roma (Gadjo).

This egalitarianism of all Roma groups, is propagated by you non-roma people. You throw all Roma groups together. Which is just not true. That has nothing to do with lies, but with correcting facts. Anyone who knows only a little bit, about the history of the Roma knows that there are great irreconcilable differences in the various Roma groups. Sorry, but as the Article said, this claimed Kings didnt belonge to ALL Roma groups. It is a fact that there are different Roma groups in the World. Every Roma knows that there is not a single Roma group. We differ in culture, music, food, dance, religion, from country to country. Not even a single origin myth exists, it differs depending on the country and religion. For example, the Turkish-speaking Muslim Roma say that only they are the real true Roma. The Turkish Roma do not even refer to themselves as Roma but as Romanlar. A big difference. There was also a Romano Ray (Gypsy King) from Istanbul in Turkey, who died in 2017, he never claimed to be the king over all Roma in the world, only over the Romanlar in Turkey. The Turkish-speaking Muslim Roma from Turkey, have a completely different history than Christian Roma in the West. Why should a Turkish Muslim Roma in Turkey, recognize a self-proclaimed Christian Roma from another country, with whom he has absolutely nothing in common, nore historically, culturally, musically, culinary, religiously or linguistically, as king? Where is the point? Not a single Roma king for all Roma groups has ever existed in History, nor will it ever come about. How could that? The greatest differences exist between Christian and Muslim roma. What do muslim roma in the balkans, who lived for centuries under Ottoman rule, have to do with christian roma (daskane roma) from the occident? The majority of the muslim roma (xoraxane roma) in bulgaria, greece and turkey speak turkish as their mother tongue and not romani language, while in contrast, Muslim roma from Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, and North Macedonia speak Romani language very well.

Nalanidil (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between different groups of Roma people is best discussed at Romani diaspora. This page is specifically about the title in question and its various claimants. CMD (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]