Template talk:Yugoslav royal family

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yugoslav royal family template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility articles

Yugoslavia

Template:Yugoslav royal family is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia articles

This template was considered for deletion on 2020 August 20. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

Yugoslavian Royal Family doesn't exist

"Royal Yugoslavia" existed for only ~23 years, and was governed by the Serbian royal family all this time. Not only does the Yugoslav throne no longer exist, but neither does Yugoslavia. While Prussia existed for hundreds of years, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia existed under that name for only 12 years and even during that time, their rule was not universally recognized. Insisting on a Yugoslav royal line defies all logic and reeks of Greater-Serbian POV.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewanderer (talk • contribs) 18:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter, at the latest they were the Yugoslavian Royal Family and are best known under those territorial designations. This is fact, not opinion. BTW, I am Canadian and don't have a single drop of Serbian blood in my body, as far as I am aware. Charles 21:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to say that you in particular are intentionally spreading Serbian POV. I'm sorry if that's what it sounded like. It's just that you are towing the same line as Greater-Serbianists.

The "Yugoslav" royals still use the title (equally with the Serbian title), but in practice they are pretending only to the Serbian throne. They have ruled or pretended to every state Serbia was in. Fine, they ruled the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later the Kingdom of Yugoslavia) and the nobility from that time could legitimately be styled Yugoslavian. However, during the Second World War they threw their support to the (overwhelmingly) Serbian Chetniks, only supporting the Yugoslav Partisans at the very end of the war.

During communism, they pretended to the Yugoslav throne among the Serbian diaspora. When communist Yugoslavia finally dissolved in the 1990s, the nobility came out in full support of the Serbian statelets formed in Croatia and Bosnia which caused two devastating wars. I assure you they cared little about the idea of Yugoslavia during this period.

However, the name Yugoslavia lived on as FR Yugoslavia, which included only Serbia and Montenegro. The royalty obviously wanted to keep the Yugoslav title to keep hold of their old claim over Montenegro, a mostly Serbian Orthodox state which has a royal pretender of its own. Now, with Montenegro independent, Yugoslavia is no more. The title shrank and shrank until being Yugoslav royalty meant being Serbian royalty, and nothing else.

Just because this title is more well known because of events over sixty years ago, does not make it accurate today. --Thewanderer 22:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't retroactively rename states and royal families though. It wouldn't even be "accurate" today to say that there is a Serbian or Yugoslavian royal family. The actions and opinions of the royal family in past decades does not mean that the Yugoslavian designation for them is invalid. The fact of the matter is they still use the title and the majority of English references to the royal family use Yugoslavia as well. Just because a state is fractured and now a number of republics does not mean that titles dating back to a previous state change. The Prince of Prussia doesn't call himself a prince of a number of different places just because Prussia does not exist anymore. The same goes for the Yugoslavian Royal Family. Charles 23:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House of Karađorđević is Serbian Royal house. They have been created in Serbia and today are found there. Here you can see that Alexander considered himself as Crown Prince of Serbia: Offical Website of House of Karađorđević

Kingdom of Serbia Association (English)

About Royal House on Kingdom of Serbia Association Website (Serbian)

(The links are all dead. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

As Peter I of Serbia (King of Serbia) became King of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Alexander I of Yugoslavia from the King of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes became the King of Yugoslavia, and in the same way Alexander II Karadjordevic became Crown Prince of Serbia. As the country changed the name so they changed the name and title. If Serbia would become a monarchy, Alexander would probably come to the throne. They are not interested for other ex-Yugoslavia country. Serbia is not a monarchy, it is a fact, but Yugoslavia does not exist and it is nothing. --Aca Srbin (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2011 (CET)

Nonsense. They changed their title from "King of Serbia" to "King of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" and then to "King of Yugoslavia" (which they never renounced). When or if they formally change their title to "King of Serbia" the edits can be reinstated. Now please, either present real sources that show the royal family formally renounced their title of "King of Yugoslavia" or stop edit-warring with these new edits. There isn't much else to discuss. (I would also appreciate if you do not waste any time "explaining" the history of the Karađorđević family to me - I know more or less everything there is to know about them.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the links. You said that you know much about them. Maybe, but surely they personally know about yourself even more. On the links you can see how they consider themselves. For example, here is written Crowned Prince Alexander II of Serbia, son of Yugoslavia’s last king, grandson of the a past king of Greece, and godson of Queen Elizabeth II of England... And again, sas the country changed the name so they changed the name and title. --Aca Srbin (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2011 (CET)

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) 14:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes should not contain entries which do not link to articles

Before I took out the entries on this template which are not linked to articles and therefore there is no way to verify them, I asked about this issues at AN [1]. The replies I got indicated that entries such as Princess Marija with no link to an article should be removed. WP:EXISTING says "Unlinked text should be avoided." Also per MOS:HONORIFIC "In general, honorific prefixes—styles and honorifics in front of a name—in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included, but may be discussed in the article." This isn't an article, honorifics should not be used in this template. I made these changes but User:Snake bgd reverted them, marking the edit as "minor" which it certainly wasn't. I am undoing the reversion.Smeat75 (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]