Template talk:Romanian royal family

Lambrinos

I am removing the Lambrinos from the template for the Romanian Royal Family because they are arguably not members of this family. Given the acceptance for the King, Michael, and his position as head of the royal family, inclusion of the Lambrinos would undermine his position as king. Because of this acceptance, the Lambrinos are not a part of Romania's royal family even if they claim or wish to be. Charles 16:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry is presenting a npov not a fundamental rule of wikipedia. You accuse me blatant pov editing for listing people who claim to members of the RF on these templates. I don’t think you’ve got the grasp of the npov policy so here is the link for you WP:NPOV - dwc lr 16:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You are not presenting NPOV, it is a POV. This lists actual members of the Romanian Royal Family, not people who argue for membership in the former royal family. It is clear-cut who is a member of the family and POV to push the claims of the descendants of an annulled marriage. Membership in the royal family for the Lambrinos would undermine the accepted position of Michael as king. Charles 16:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Clear cut in your opinion ("The Romanian Royal Family consists of the king, the queen and five princesses. That's it."). I'm just interested in presenting a npov. - dwc lr 17:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You are not presenting a NPOV though. There are no sources which make the Lambrinos members of the Romanian Royal Family and members of the House of Hohenzollern. The court ruling didn't give them either of those. Again, it's like listing Hilda Toledano in the House of Braganza-Wettin. Charles 17:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it anything like Hilda Toledano? Carol Lambrino was recognised as the legitimate first born son of King Carol II he is referred to by sources as Prince Carol of Romania, his son is referred to as Prince Paul. Did any of this happen with Toledano? - dwc lr 17:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Also why don't we remove them from the actual Romanian Royal Family article then if they can't be listed here because that would violate npov if we did that and violates it removing them from here. . - dwc lr 18:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's like Hilda Toledano because it doesn't matter that Carol Lambrino was recognized as Carol II's legitimate son, he did not retroactively become a dynast, a Royal Highness, a Prince of Romania, a Prince of Hohenzollern or a member of the House of Hohenzollern, even though he or his descendants might claim to be those things. Again, claims are what Hilda and Carol have in common, just that. One ridiculous, one maybe not as much. The court ruling did not make him a prince no matter what he called himself or what his son calls himself. Removing them sounds like a fair idea. Charles 20:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The legality of the claims can be discussed in the relevant articles. There is a rival branch who claim to be members of the Romanian Royal Family all these templates and articles do/did is acknowledge that fact. You don’t regard Nicholas Romanov as a dynast would you object/allow him to be listed in an article/template on the Russian Imperial House . - dwc lr (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The difference between the Russians and the Romanians is that there is no arguing that the Romanian Royal Family is extinct. Since it is extant and has a king, it can easily be determined (as it has been) that Paul Lambrino/Hohenzollern is not a member of the Romanian Royal Family or the House of Hohenzollern. My personal opinion of the Russian situation is irrelevant because it is not symmetrical. As far as I know, there is no template for the Russian imperial family and I wouldn't suggest complicating the matter by creating one. My Wiki opinion, however, is that there are reasonable grounds and views for both sides of the Russian situation, following solid and not-so-solid arguments. If, however, there was no dispute that Maria Vladimirovna was the Titular Empress of Russia then Nicholas Romanov would be with 100% certainty nothing but a morganaut, devoid of dynasticity and the title Prince of Russia. Such is the case here, there really is no dispute who the King of Romania was. It was and is Michael and he will be succeeded by Frederick William, Prince of Hohenzollern, not by his non-dynastic half-nephew. Charles 22:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is just another example of why - in my opinion - templates should not be used (at least to the extent they currently are). Templates try to summarize information and present it simply without explanation. Perhaps that works sometimes. But in situations where there is conflict it just doesn't work. A template doesn't allow for the nuancing that narrative text does. Noel S McFerran (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that’s a fair comment so I’m dropping my opposition to not listing the Lambrino’s in the templates as this sort of information is probably better presented in articles like Romanian Royal Family, Line of succession to Romanian throne and individuals articles themselves where the arguments can be discussed. - dwc lr (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Radu's membership in the Royal Family

It is due to his status as a HRH and a "Prince of Romania" in his own right, not as a husband of a Princess since he is not "HRH The Prince Consort of Romania" yet, until Michael's death. Any member of the Royal House (i.e. the larger family of King Michael, inclusive of Prince Radu) with a Royal title (i.e. a HRH) automatically belongs to the Royal Family, per the new Statute rules. Lil' mouse (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

crown princess of Hohenzollern

I am extremely frustrated that someone went and added the "of Hohenzollern" to the name of each of the princesses. To talk about tastelessness. Undue weight. To talk about what is clutter. If Wikipedia material really faces this sort of "industriousness" (read: damaging tendency to clutter to the point beyond stupidity), I sorely hope that at least some material survives readable. Henq (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

An example how to do the same cluttering in a certain other article: Go add there into the first line as her "proper name", "Her Royal Highness, Lord of Mann (instead of David Howe), Elizabeth II Alexandra Mary Mountbatten-Windsor née Windsor, originally Wettin, Duchess of Saxony, should also be Princess of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Saalfeld but her granddaddy unfortunately dropped it, Defender of Faith, Queen of Australia, Queen of Canada, Queen of France (legitimately, title however dropped in 1800), Queen of the United Kingdom, called Majesty". Sure the welcome will be warm. Henq (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As explained in my brief edit summary, the British and Bulgarian royals save the monarchs have their "of X" part of their names mentioned. So should then the Romanian ones, too. Lil' mouse (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Henq, you need to drop this "tastelessness" and what not attitude. Lil' Mouse, it's wrong to compose names like that and it isn't done. Charles 04:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC notification

A request for comments which may impact this template has been started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC on style in royal family templates. You are welcome to comment there. Fram (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)