Jump to content

Talk:Prince John Konstantinovich of Russia

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

Untitled

[edit]

Quite a lot of discrepancies with the titles of Elena and their two children. Before marriage, Elena was HRH; after marriage, she was HH. Alexander III decreed that only the children and the grandchildren of the Tsar in the male-line could hold the title HRH Grand Duke/Duchess. The others would be HH Prince/ss. Morhange 23:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Elena did not lose her HRH, because it was not in purview of Russian law to regulate anything in Serbian titles. She was simultaneously HRH and HH, in which situation HRHtakes precedence, also on use. And, there were no Russian style of HRH Grand Duke/Duchess; such all were HIH (imperial highnesses), of course not royal. Shilkanni 02:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus on any particular location to move to - defaults to no move at this time. JPG-GR (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing that this article be moved to Prince Ioann Konstantinovich of Russia, its original title. Typing the name into a search engine turns up 9,200 hits for Prince Ioann Konstantinovich of Russia, 1,100 hits for Prince Ivan Konstantinovich of Russia, 1,010 hits for Prince John Konstantinovich of Russia and only 110 hits for Prince John Constantinovich of Russia, the current title of this article. I have also noticed that most of the Romanov biographies I have seen published within the last 10 years refers to him as Prince Ioann. It is Wikipedia convention to use a title most commonly used in English. That appears to be Prince Ioann Konstantinovich, which is also the most correct phonetic translation of his name from the Russian. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are favouring internal consistency for patronyms. We do not pander to Russophiles. Charles 13:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't exactly "pandering" to Russophiles. I prefer Konstantinovich to Constantinovich, but you're also using a first name that is not favored in current bios or magazine or newspaper articles about this family. The fact remains that he is far more often referred to as "Ioann" than as "John," as demonstrated by the number of Google hits. It is preferable to use the most exact phonetic translation of the person's Russian name, which happens to be Ioann rather than John. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's preferable to John Constantinovich, but there's still the fact that Prince Ioann Konstantinovich gets nine times the hits that Ivan Constantinovich does. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify your search engine, and your search texts, below. Raw google is discouraged because there are many ways to fall into error; I strongly suspect you have found one. Using a name-form that is completely unfamiliar to someone who has read books on the last Romanoffs seems less than desirable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the move to Ioann Constantinovich. He is most commonly referred to by Ioann, not Ivan and never have I seen him as John. If Charles thinks the articles should follow with the C spelling of their patronymics, then I would agree with that just as well, but I do think that this article needs to be at the name he is mostly known as, which is Ioann. His parents didn't name him Ivan; Ioann means the same thing in English, John, but its Ioann, not Ivan, and definitely not John. I don't have a problem with the other kids of this family being at their Anglicized names (Gavril or George) or really with the Constantinovich part, which is fair enough. But this should really be at Ioann. Morhange (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think Ivan Constantinovich is much better and widely used in English. Six Russian Tsars had the same named and all refered as Ivan, most notably Ivan IV the Terrible. would you changed it to John IV the terrible ? nope. Google hits are not the parameter to follow; history and tradition are more valid. Miguelemejia 23:47, 15 May 2008
I can live with Ivan Constantinovich, as long as it's not John. Just to clarify, you oppose the name Ioann Konstantinovich but don't want it to stay John Constantinovich either? --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course history is more valid, but if his parents named him Ioann rather than Ivan, then that should be where his page is located. Ivan as his name is not more widely used, Ioann is. Just because his name is also translated into a more common name doesn't mean that we should decide he needs a name change. Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia was given the name Louis, spelled in the English way, instead of Ludwig in German, but we don't have his article at Prince Ludwig Ferdinand, because that was not his birth name. One of Prince Joachim of Denmark's middle names is Waldemar, as opposed to the Danish Valdemar, but we don't change the spelling. My arguement for Ioann is that was his name, and that it is a variant of Ivan, but it is NOT Ivan. Morhange (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Data

[edit]

Prince Ioann Konstantinovich of Russia, 9,170 hits on Google

Prince Ivan Konstantinovich of Russia, 1,040 hits

Prince John Konstantinovich of Russia, 1,010 hits

Prince John Constantinovich of Russia, 198 hits

I also tried a search of Google books, but that search turned up a number of Russian princes prior to the 20th century. The raw Google search turned up more specific references to this person and it's also the search that the average Joe is likely to do on Google. Take a look at the top pages that come up. Another on-line encyclopedia also uses Ioann Konstantinovich. Charlotte Zeepvat's 2004 book The Camera and the Tsars uses "Ioann Konstantinovich" as do several other biographies I own that were written in the last decade or so. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raw google is not reliable for any purpose; it does not represent reliable, or in this case English, hits. In this case, you have made elementary errors of method also:
  • Your search phrase will attract hits on every file which contains Ioann and Constantinovich; looking at the results shows that this has produced false positives among the first ten search results, although Google does tend to place exact hits on a phrase high.
  • You have also neglected to exclude Wikipedia itself; much of the first page is Wikipedia. We and our mirrors cannot prove English usage; they prove our usage, which is not reliable.
  • You did not select for English. Nor does your search phrase compel English; of is ignored.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be, but even with my "elementary" search I found more references to Prince Ioann Konstantinovich or to Prince Ivan Konstantinovich than I did to Prince John Constantinovich. The references that are made that are specifically about him are to Ioann or Ivan. As I said, every book I have about this family that was published in the last 10 years refers to him as Ioann or Ivan. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More data

[edit]

Someone asked how he is referred to in books about the Romanovs. In the books I have, The Camera and the Tsars, The Romanovs: Love, Power and Tragedy he's referred to as Ioann. I have a couple more in storage, but I'll see if I can dig them out to check. Also, on Prince Nicholas Romanov's website, he's referred to as Ioann, and one the page for a Russian Orthodox Church another Ioann. Morhange (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then we really should say why he was given an unusual name, whatever we do about the title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich supposedly preferred the old-fashioned Russian names and Russian customs for his children, though I can't remember exactly where I read it. Tatiana used to be a name that was more popular among peasants and was viewed as somewhat rustic, but the eldest daughter in the family was named Tatiana after the character from Pushkin's Eugene Onegin. Ioann was the most ancient Russian form of the name, which probably appealed to his father. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do remember reading that, and I think it was in a letter he wrote, which is in the book A Lifelong Passion. But I thought Nicholas named his daughter Tatiana after Onegin, while KR named his daughter for the peasant background of the name. Morhange (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think both Tatianas were named for Onegin, though Konstantin's Tatiana probably made it seem more "legitimate" for Nicholas II to use. I have Lifelong Passion as well and I just noted that Ioann is referred to as Ioann there rather than John. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

This is a very curious case. The Russian name is given as Иоанн but all of the other interwikis use a form of Ivan? Why is the subject not referred to as Ioann or Johann in Latin-script languages? Is this case similar to Peter L'Enfant who is now referred to as "Pierre" in English despite using the forename Peter himself? — AjaxSmack 02:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Place of repose

[edit]

His body is still in Beijing, under the pavement of the parking lot? J S Ayer (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_John_Konstantinovich_of_Russia&oldid=1203111438"