Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Note the following pages and the talk page sections: Saxe-Altenburg[1], House of Windsor[2], Konrad, Prince of Saxe-Meiningen[3].

To be as fair as I can be, I will not state the sides in the matter, I will just ask that the recent page history be noted (January 2-3). Are such unsourced additions and changes, as noted on the talk pages and in the page edit histories appropriate or even true? Yes, to determine the latter it would require WP:OR and that is why I motion for the areas in question to be removed entirely. Charles 23:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Hirohito#RFC:_Appropriate_Emperor_Name

An RFC in an article supported by this project has been opened, comments are welcome. MBisanz talk 01:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands with her daughter and successor Princess Juliana in the 1910s

You can now support/oppose or comment to this featured picture candidate on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Wilhelmina and Juliana. Thank you, Ilse@ 12:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, the picture was promoted. – Ilse@ 09:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

De jure reigns

I feel we should remove de jure reigns from all the monarch biographies? I find these unofficial reigns as being something to appease staunch royalist. They also have the potential to confuse less-familiar readers. What do others think? GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this include people like Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia and Louis-Antoine, Duke of Angoulême? Morhange (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Care should be taken with "de jure" as it is inherently POV. "By Right?" Who gives this right? If the country in question has removed the right, then unless wikipedia is written from the DivineRightofKings POV - there is no right. It should rather be narrated as "claimed" if the subject does/did claim it, and related to trivia (ie. not featured prominently - and clearly attributed to whatever minority) if it is only monarchy-crufters that do.--Docg 20:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to Morhange; yes it includes pretenders aswell. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, see the changes made (with my help) at Charles II of England, concerning the time period of 1649 to 1660. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Surname of Carol Lambrino: "of Romania" or "al României"

This discussion concerns the following articles, with examples of differences:

Also of concern are two articles: a Washington Times article from 1995 and an Evenimentul Zilei article, which are quoted as sources.

The situation:

Two users have been claiming that Carol Lambrino's surname was "of Romania" and have cited two sources. I countered that the Evenimentul Zilei article is a literal translation from Romanian to English and does not indicate that Carol's surname was "of Romania", rather that his surname means "of Romania". I also countered that the Washington Times article is from 1995 and does not indicate a surname whatsoever, but rather a princely territorial designation in conjunction with a presumed surname (Hohenzollern) appearing as "Hohenzollern of Romania". Both users have chosen to ignore this and are taking only "of Romania" and saying it is the surname (when the surname was only given eight years later and the article fancifully claims that Carol "should have been" something he didn't exactly become at a later date.

Among the other claims made is that since the Romanian Royal Family can use "of Hohenzollern", why can't the Lambrinos use "of Romania" as a surname? I countered that "of Hohenzollern" is used by the Romanian Royals as both a house name and as a princely territorial designation and that it differs from an actual surname. They counter that since the Lambrinos have used the titles of Prince of Romania that it proves the surname was "of Romania" and not "al României" in English. I countered that by saying that styles and titles can differ from surnames. Indeed, an example used was that we have princes and princesses of Savoy, but we say their surname (they adopted their house name as a surname because they didn't have one before) is "di Savoia", not "of Savoy", although that's what it means. It is very much like saying that Mr. LeBlanc from France becomes Mr. White when we are speaking the English.

I did not deny Carol his claimed princely status at all... The article says he was also known as HRH Prince Carol of Romania. The two users have insisted that "of Romania" is to be used and that "al României" is the Romanian form. However, the surname is "al României", literally in English of Romania, the form I put in the article. The users have consistently and constantly been reverting this without further discussing the sources. They seem to ignore the points which disprove their theory of the surname "of Romania" existing word for word when it only exists as an idea in English.

Among the claims made:

The passage from the Washington Times reads: “But it was too late. A year later, Zizi gave birth to Paul's father - who should be called Carol Mircea Grigore Hohenzollern of Romania, according to the "little court" here.” It says nothing of a surname and it is a little odd to omit Hohenzollern from the constant changes as it surely isn't a middle name. This passage, however, does not state what was. The context is one of a surname/family name (Hohenzollern) with a territorial designation (of Romania, not a surname), written in 1995 when Carol's birth certificate was only changed about a decade later. His birth certificate, a primary source, clearly gives "al României" as a surname, which it gives it to his father as a territorial designation, leaving his surname blank. Note the difference, the King did not officially have a surname, only a territorial designation which may be translated. All other sources which the users claim to give "of Romania" as a surname are compromised by using the title of prince (because no respectable paper would say Prince NN al României) or presuppose or spectulate on what did not become fact. As I said earlier, the users are not arguing for "Hohenzollern of Romania" as a surname, just picking out the piece they want (when really, neither "of Romania" nor "Hohenzollern of Romania" are stated to be surnames).

I suggest that the legal names of Carol Lambrino be given as: Carol Lambrino, Carol Hohenzollern and Carol al României (in English literally Carol of Romania), styled HRH Prince Carol of Romania, since "of Romania" only ever exists in the context of a princely title. Thank you. Charles 19:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes Charles two sources have been cited what sources have you cited because I‘m just citing sources with regards to his surname because “of Romania" is used in English language sources. What English sources use "al României" when talking about his surname you have yet to provide any so your edits are original research and rightfully reverted because original research is not allowed. Simply “of Romania” is supported by English sources "al României" isn’t. - dwc lr (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The Washington Times article is already discounted, Carol has a birth certificate from a decade after the Washington Times article. It does not say his surname was or is "of Romania" and in fact uses a styling "Hohenzollern of Romania" which you have not commented on here. Most English sources use "of Romania" with a princely title, not as a standalone surname. You also have not commented on the Romanian newspaper's unreliable translation. The ONLY verifiable source giving a surname without a princely style of any sort so far is Carol's birth certificate, a primary source. It gives his surname as "al României". Ignoring the refutation of sources entirely does not help whatever cause is trying to be accomplished. Users would rather make fun of a single mistake I made in English or "presume" sources they think I would accept instead of speaking about the situation rather than the editor. Verifibility of fact and literal translations are two different things. I will await the opinion of an uninvolved editor on the matter. Charles 19:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The Washington Times article reports what the court has ruled and they use “of Romania” when mentioning his surname not al României but the ruling was appealed numerous times but the court ruled on the surname he could take, English sources list it as “of Romania“. With regards to “Hohenzollern of Romania” yes they note his surname as “of Romania” not “al României” or “Hohenzollern al României” for the Evenimentul Zilei article they translate his surname and their not the only ones going by the Washington Times article. What English sources (if any) do you actually have that use “al României” for his surname. Maybe the uninvolved editor your waiting for will have some sources supporting al României in English sources as you seem to have none. - dwc lr (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
"With regards to “Hohenzollern of Romania” yes they note his surname as “of Romania” not “al României” or “Hohenzollern al României”" No, they don't. What is Hohenzollern then? A middle name? There are no sources presented giving "of Romania" as a verifiable surname. Is that his surname when he was living in Romania? I am truly waiting for sources that state his surname was "of Romania" because none have been shown. The meaning of a surname and the actual surname are two different things. I suppose if someone in France ever got my birth certificate it would be inadmissible and I would have to be "de X" and not "von X" as I am named. Sources don't have to be in English expect to describe the English usage of things. The birth certificate establishes fact, the WT article predates the birth certificate and speaks of something which didn't happen (a fiction) and the EZ article isn't up to snuff in terms of dictating English usage since the translation itself is faulty. They are writing from a Romanian convention, remember that. There was an argument for Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg that the article should be named Alexandra, countess of Frederiksborg on the basis that a literal translation of the Danish convention using "grevinde" (not "Grevinde") resulted in "countess" and not "Countess". That was Danish convention, not English convention. Same for the EZ article, they utilizes Romanian convention (perhaps they translate their names, perhaps not) but either way the source is compromised by using the title of prince and also by being a poor translation. Charles 20:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Evenimentul Zilei reports what his Romanian birth certificate says and translates his surname (Mircea Grigore of Romania). All the Carol Lambrino article is saying is what’s supported by English sources “of Romania“, al României simply isn't. - dwc lr (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The EZ also calls him "Prince". You have not answered for the sloppiness of the translation and have also not answered my post on your talk page. Charles 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There's too many names in the opening paragraph, making it bloated & sorta difficult to read. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is about content as it appears anywhere in any of the listed articles, not just the opening line. As such, it is not limited to or specifically about the opening line of the article on Carol Lambrino. Charles 20:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally I think the names should be discussed in the main text: Born as “Lambrino”, got the surname “Hohenzollern”, got the surname “of Romania” (al României in Romanian) - dwc lr (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
He didn't get the surname "of Romania", he got the surname "al României", which literally means "of Romania" (but that isn't his surname, just the meaning of it which is significant but doesn't change it). Charles 20:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
English sources use “of Romania” please show me some that use “al României”. - dwc lr (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The EZ calls him "Prince". You have not answered for the sloppiness of the translation and have also not answered my post on your talk page. Charles 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
They say his name as result of his birth certificate and use “of Romania” for his surname. English sources use “of Romania” as I’ve said before, do you have any English sources that use al României. - dwc lr (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
See my replies here. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I replied there but that is the last time I will. I have centralized the discussion here. Fair warning since it covers more than one article. Charles 20:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The simple fact here is “of Romania” is supported by English sources that meet Wikipedia:Verifiability while we are still waiting for English sources supporting “al României” but I’m not holding my breath that any will be forthcoming. - dwc lr (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I replied a last time on this matter here. Consider yourself warned: any further unreferenced edits from you on this matter will be reverted per WP:V policies. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Do not warn me considering all of your egregious lies, liberties, POV, OR and lack of answers with regard to the styling used versus a true surname. Your references do not support your actions whatsoever. Charles 21:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry to see that your inability to reference your POV's pushes you to such uncivil behavior unworthy of Wikipedia with accusations violating the WP:AGF policies ("lies", etc.). I am not going to waste my time reporting such behavior to the Admin boards, although I should. Again, without references for your POV's, all your unreferenced edits on this matter will be reverted. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If you can perhaps you should but realize also you have four articles with histories full of your baseless reversions and claims of ownership for the Romanians and also the claims that I am not fit to edit on the basis of a spelling error. My, oh my. Perhaps we should all stop talking and wait for a third party because you are not going to say anything to sway me with your side-stepping and lack of proper sources that will likely never exist. I have a reference clearly stating his surname, you don't. I had no idea that individual writers of articles could "invent" "surnames" (not used in that manner), especially before the birth certificate existed. Oh, but his surname is actually Hohenzollern of Romania now? Give everyone a break. None of us will agree, let's wait for someone uninvolved. Charles 21:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
1. I never claimed you are unfit to edit, just that you do not tend to use references and tend to rather quote yourself -- not good enough for Wikipedia, per WP:V rules. 2. His surnames, not surname, are, not is, "Hohenzollern" and "of Romania", the former in EU countries, the latter in Romania. 3. I do have two references proving his surname in English includes "of Romania", you don't have references proving his surname in English is "al Romaniei". You only have a reference for his surname in Romanian (i.e. his birthcertificate), but not in English. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Still awaiting the opinions and insights of uninvolved editors. Charles 22:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be Carol Hohenzollerin IMO. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, that is NOT the issue at hand at all. Charles 22:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is interested in the issue and anyway nothing can be done without sources using "al României" in English. - dwc lr (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming Conventions: Monarchs

The naming convention for monarchs has previously been an exception to Wikipedia's general naming conventions. Efforts are now being made to bring them in line, with a propoasl for the most common name for a monarch to take precedence. (eg. William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Mary, Queen of Scots.) Please consider the proposals at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Proposals to change Monarchal naming conventions so we can get wide consensus on this matter. Thanks. Gwinva (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Update needed

The project is in need of an update, particularly the GAs and FAs section. A batch have both been promoted and demoted since the last update. I would do it but I haven't got time right now. I'll do it later if no one's up to it. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 10:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Louis XIV

Members of this project may be interested at a discussion going on at the Louis XIV talk page. If you have anything to add to this obscure discussion, additional opinions would be welcome. Coemgenus 16:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Being a rather long thread and, hence, more difficult to follow all the arguments on either side of the debate(s), these have been summarized on the next thread. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

James Ogilvy

I've just been looking at this article, which has been tagged as lacking notability since December. As far as I can see, the two possible claims for notability for this guy are

  1. He is 35th in line to the throne, and
  2. He is Princess Eugenie of York's Godfather.

There are other people higher up the line of succession who do not have articles, and if being the parent or offspring of a notable person does not automatically confirm notability (Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria), then I'm not sure that being a Godfather does either. However, I'd like to get a more general consensus before I consider taking this to AfD. Any thoughts? —  Tivedshambo  (t|c) 09:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • It was me who flagged the article. I do think that people who actually perform as royalty are thereby notable: even people who think all this royalty folderol is an antiquated waste of money must concede that it is a public use of public money and therefore a performer is noteworthy. But this chap Ogilvy just tags along to the odd wedding or funeral: no speechifying, no bottle-cracking, no ribbon-snipping. Being in line to the throne is perhaps significant when it's imaginable that those above will all die. I cannot believe that more than twenty (indeed, more likely ten) would disappear other than in a nuclear attack or whatever so ghastly that even the most ardent royalists would be unconcerned about kingship. When he's not wondering about the day when 33 -- no, 34 people have been wiped out by an asteroid, it seems that our man is concerned with the publication of Luxury Briefing, a newsletter for those involved in selling expensive goods and services (says the Telegraph), making money, enjoying his wristwatches, and dreaming of an Alfa Romeo. Well, OK, but not notable or even obviously columnworthy. -- Hoary (talk) 11:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Not note-worthy, take it to AfD... There are even titled people who are not noteworthy and who have been deleted before. Charles 23:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I have taken it to AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Ogilvy —  Tivedshambo  (t|c) 19:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone needs to see King Ralph ;). matt91486 (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal: English/British monarchs lists

It has been proposed that List of English monarchs and List of British monarchs should be merged. Discussion at Talk:List of British monarchs if interested. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that proposal has been defeated (again). GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong use of titles, honorifics and styles in pages Indian royalty and nobility

I'm not an expert according to the use of titles, honorifics and styles in Wikipedia pages of Indian royalty and nobility, but I have the feeling that a lot of these pages do not follow the Wikipedia guidelines. Take for example: Maharaja Yadavindra Singh, Mohan Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana or even worse: Shahu IV of Kolhapur or Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma! They have a many lines of honorifics, styles and titles and what more. Many are kings (Maharaja) or crown princes (Yuvaraja) but in their names also the honorific "Sir" is used. That can't be right. What should be the guidlines for those pages? Demophon (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

De jure reigns, Part II

I still feel 'de jure' reigns should be removed from Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's an odd phrase. Because you need to ask de jure according to who? For example, as Charly I's head rolled into the basket was his eldest Charles II de jure? According to who? The de jure authority in the land was Parliament, who declared that he was not king.--Gazzster (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
But parliament had no right to do so as they lacked the royal assent. --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

With the monarchy abolished (upon Charles I's execution), there'd be no royal assent to require. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. By ruling tyrannically and raising his banner against Parliament, the elected reps of the nation, and by further continuing to plot when he was in captivity, Charles I had abdicated his rights. And being dead he certainly couldn't sign any Act declaring Charles II a non-king. There was a power vacum filled by Parliament. Long live Vegemite.--Gazzster (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense, the monarchy couldnt be abolished in the first place, they had no royal assent. Who on earth taught you two, de jure = )? --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
How do you explain Romania, Bulgaria, Russia, Greece etc. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. A new regime can become the legitimate power. Would you suggest that the government of France is illegitimate because it did not obtain Louis XVI's assent to having his head lopped off?--Gazzster (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well Russia I would describe as one of the most abhorrent acts of mankind. Romania was a Coup d'état. And Bulgaria and Greece's kings never signed abdications. But then I'm not sure if royal assent was needed in those countries...--Cameron (t|p|c) 15:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Whether it was needed or not, the new regimes of these countries were recognised as legitimate. When Charles I proved himself an enemy of good governance and the security of the realm, Parliament abolished the monarchy. The right to depose tyrannts has been recognised by the law of the nations.--Gazzster (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
How ignorant of me...I have never heard of that law.--Cameron (t|p|c) 15:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
If royal assent (i.e. the Monarchs approval) is required absolutedly? How did the Prince of Wales become Regent in 1811? GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Its natural law. The right to self-defence applied to nations. Common sense.--Gazzster (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
If nations could never legitimately overthrow tyrants and replace their authority, no nation would be free.Would you defend the authority of a king so much that you would expect his subjects to suffer his brutalities and contempt of the laws and traditions of the nation? There is no doubt: Charles I did all these things.--Gazzster (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
IMHO? there's no such thing as de jure reign. Either one has reigned or hasn't. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You must be a de facto kind of person...But de jure is also important. As to Gazzster: My opion on C I is immaterial. He paid the ultimate price for his deeds. But what of his son? Surely his son and rightful heir had nothing to do with the actions of his father? According to the laws of succession C II as CI's eldest son became king on the death of his father...--Cameron (t|p|c) 21:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Ya can't succeed to a Throne that doesn't exist. On January 30th 1649, Charles became King of Scotland but no King of England or Ireland. Later in 1651, he was deposed as King of Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we are going round in circles...you know what I'm going to say now dont you? --Cameron (t|p|c) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
No idea. But I'd be more interested in seeing a source for Charles II being king of England in 1649. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if most sources have Charles becoming King of England, Ireland & Scotland only in 1660. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I can see the point of discussing the thing if sources A, B, C, D... say one thing and sources N, O, P, Q... say something else. That makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense is to discuss the thing without actually looking at what is said in print. Let me start you off. The Handbook of British Chronology, a rather weak reed when it comes to people like Offa but quite authoritative when it comes to Charles II, says "acc. 29 May 1660 ... Note: regnal years date from execution of Charles I, 30 Jan. 1649." Who's up next? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
What's mean? Charles II succeeded in 1660, but his reign began in 1649? GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
1660, but he counted it from 1649. I feel the urge to channel Mandy Rice-Davies. Oh, why not? "Well, he would do, wouldn't he?" This is on a par with Henry VIII being King of France or James VI being King of Great Britain. They said so too. This is the kind of thing footnotes are for. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The de jure reigns are 'monarchist creations' In England & Scotland, upon the Restoration (if he was King? how could he be restored?), monarchist wanted to erase the existants of an interagnum. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors merely look at published scholarship and summarize it. If published scholarship calls someone de jure sovereign, then it's appropriate for a wiki-article to do so. Noel S McFerran (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not if it is disputable. Publication does not an authority make. Charles II did proclaim himself king from 1649, and Wikipedia may say so. But the phrase de jure implies that he was king accordingly to the law of the land. The highest law of the land then existing, Parliament, had debarred him from the succession. As Parliamentarians argued at the time, English subjects had in the past deposed kings before. --Gazzster (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No offence but it is not your dispute of the matter that counts. You would need to provide sources disputing his de jure reign. --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No offence either but I think the arguments proposed so far by GoodDay and myself are reasonable arguments to the contrary. You seem to assume that the de jure reign does not require justification. Why?--Gazzster (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Charles was a preteneder; just like Nicholas of Montenegro, Constantine of Greece, Alexander of Serbia, are today. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, though at the time,his claim had weight and was taken seriously, given the divisions in England. His royalist supporters certainly would have assumed Charles II was king. But this is the point about de jure claims, isn't it? They are de jure according to whose interests are served thereby. Of course when Charles II entered London in 1660 supporters of the Commonwealth suddenly 'remembered' that he had succeeded on his father's death. They grovelled and lauded for position, land, and,in many cases, for their very lives (Charles exacted a bloody revenge for his father's death). Sp I again ask, de jure, according to whose law?--Gazzster (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
In agreement, whose law? GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
English law, gentlemen, English law. Might I add that Her Majesty's website do not list "the cromwells" as monarchs. Also you may want to go and change the monarch article.--Cameron (t|p|c) 16:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
We're not discussing whether Olly and Dicko were monarchs (though you previously argued they were). We're talking about the implications of a de jure but not de facto reign. English law? Well English law at the time held that there was no monarchy. You may disagree about the legitimacy of the Long Parliament, but there was no other authority in the land. Charles I had warred against his own subjects, and, as you say, paid the ultimate price. There simply was no other authority that could make and interpret the law.--Gazzster (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I would sincerely like a source as to him "warring his own subjects"?--Cameron (t|p|c) 16:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Source it? It's rather obvious. Charles left London. Charles was the first to raise his standard. His forces went to war with his own subjects. That's what a civil war is.--Gazzster (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Further, it's impractical that the Royal Assent be the benchmark of all legitimacy. It could lead to some bizarre situations. Parliament would have needed the King's assent to resist his tyranny. And it would have needed the King's assent to try him and execute him! Then it would have needed the assent of his eldest son to debar him from the throne.--Gazzster (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The core of all of this is obvious. Can the abolishment of a monarchy be denied ever having occured? after the monarchy is restored? Can the victors re-write history? I'd say no. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Gazzster that is exactly the point. This was back then...there was no democracy. One needed the kings consent for everything. We are talking about different times. Times when people where hanged for homsexuality or speaking against the king...--Cameron (t|p|c) 18:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Things were not so different, Cameron. Nations rebelled against their rulers, legitimised the new regime. Just as happens today. And it is ironic, that if the English nation dutifully bowed to the Divine Right of kings, as you suggest they should have, there would be no democracy now. The Stuarts believed that lex = rex; that is, there was no higher law than the will of the king. Parliament argued that there was a higher law - the good of the nation, and that even kings were subject to it. And under this law it was possible for a king to commit treason against the realm. This truth is the greatness of the English nation, not any king.--Gazzster (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's remember, in England (for example): Henry VI didn't approve of Edward IV's succession; nor did Richard III of Henry VII's; James II of William III & Mary II's. Depositions didn't require 'royal assent'. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I still agree with Noel S McF.'s comment above. As the "de jure theory" is endorsed by scholars then it's appropriate for a wiki-article to do so. I am not being unreasonable here. I dont want to get rid of de facto...I merely want to add de jure. --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I've no intentions of edit warring over it & there's alot of monarch bio articles out there that has 'de jure' mentioned. Does this mean, you're gonna restore de jure reign at Charles II of England? -- GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I find it perfectly fine as it is. It is mentioned in the intro straight away. However I would like it added to LoEm. --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I still disagree with the idea that since some scholars may date Charles II reign from 1649 de jure means that the contrary opinion should be excluded from Wikipedia articles. Ironically sounds like how the two Charlies tried to run England.--Gazzster (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I never requested such a thing. You mean removing the de facto date? Gracious no! I think everyone would block me at once! --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, so he did not reign de jure from 1649.--Gazzster (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Still using Charles II as an example: Most encyclopedias I've seen? have his reign in England, Scotland & Ireland as 1660 to 1685 (no mention of de jure at all). GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Even the german wikipedia mentions him, and surely the English wikipedia should be the most informative about English history? --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Nobody wants to chuck him out.--Gazzster (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I meant "it" not "him"....--Cameron (t|p|c) 19:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
If Cameron's main point is wanting to add the 1649 date to List of English monarchs, then certainly that can be done without saying as a fact that he was the de jure king? Something to the effect of "(claiming to have reigned from 1649)" or "(de jure from 1649 according to the Convention Parliament of 1660)"? -- Jao (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Quite so. As the opening para of Charles II says.--Gazzster (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not a big fan of these de jure reigns. IMO, Charles II's reign was 1660-85. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks jao, as you have discerned I dont want to present it as fact, i merely seek to include the information. --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Besides you have stated that the parliament became the legitimate legislational source upon the demise of the former authority. And you presumably acknowledge that CII became the authority upon the downfall of the previous one? That must mean you acknowledge the Declaration of Breda as being legal. And as you know the DoB declared CII to be the rightful monarch since 49. I would also like to quote His Majesty Charles I himself "I would know by what power I am called hither. I would know by what authority, I mean lawful authority?". --Cameron (t|p|c) 21:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced by this royal assent argument. As I've mentioned earlier, Henry VI didn't give royal assent to he's being replaced by Edward IV; but he was replaced. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool! Some more interesting stuff to sink my teeth into. Thank you, Cameron: I do enjoy our discussions! The Declaration of Breda was not a legal document. Not from the point of view of Parliament anyway. It only assumed a semblance of legality when Parliament accepted it as a basis for inviting Charles to return to England.So it was Parliament that validated Breda, not Charles II. In any case Breda was not so much a legislative act as an expression of the king's desire to reconcile himself with the English people. But Charles did not consider himself bound by his own Declaration. He largely ignored the amnesty contained in it, exacting a bloody vengeance not only ojn the regicides but upon anyone remotely connected to his father's death.

To your second interesting point, that Charles I denied the right of the Commons to try him: he said, 'A King cannot be tried by any superior jurisdiction on earth..' The politics of the time accepted that principle, and it was not until the 20th century that legalists accepted that a ruler (such as Saddam Hussein, Milosovic, Hitler-had he lived) could be tried for crimes against his (or her) own people. In 1649 this was a revolutionary concept, but these were revolutionary times. Parliament asserted that the nation was greater than the king. Therefore the nation could try its king.Now some of us might disagree with this proposition. But it is a proposition, and the Long Parliament put it into effect. Besides Parliament there was no other authority that could possibly effect justice upon its ruler. The alternative was leaving a declared enemy of Parliament free to harm the realm. Indeed, while in captivity Charles continued to plot with the Scots, Irish and foreign powers to reassert his personal rule. And there was no other authority that could possibly govern the realm.--Gazzster (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said somewhere else, those who dispute the right of Parliament to depose the king in 1649 must also dispute its right to do so in 1688. Such people must therefore believe that every monarch since 1688 has been illegitimate. If they do not believe this, then I'd like to know the reason why. TharkunColl (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed; James II with out his royal assent was deposed. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, though in 1688 the English establishment shied away from legally deposing the king; it was ashamed of 1649 and did not want to repeat the 'crimes' of the Long Parliament. Instead it invented the fiction that James II had abdicated by fleeing the country. It was in effect though, a deposition. --Gazzster (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This was how Bradshawe explained the right of the court over which he presided to act without the royal assent:
  • For there is a contract and bargain made between the king and his people, and the oath is taken for the performance, and certainly, Sir (addressed to Charles), the bond is reciprocal, for as you are their liege Lord, so they are your liege subjects...the one tie, the one bond, is the bond of protection that is due from the sovereign, the other is the bond of subjection that is due from the subject. Sir, if this bond be once broken, farewell sovereignty!' (Bradshawe, sentencing address to Charles I, from Geoffrey Robertson, The Tyrannicide Brief, p185)

This idea was not revolutionary. It was the legal basis of the feudal system. Assertion of Divine Right was in fact the revolutionary political doctrine of the day.--Gazzster (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Likewise I enjoy my discussions with you two, even if I do feel surrounded by ghastly republicans = ). Are you both aware that until this day in the United Kingdom (and in the CR's) the sovereign may not be tried? The sovereign is the highest authority and for anyone to declare otherwise (or to advocate the abolition of the monarchy in print, for that matter) is to be guilt of High Treason under Treason Felony Act 1848. So you see even until this day the people are not higher than their monarch. I dont anyone has been higher in all of English history. --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Correction:There were the Witenagemot, dont you just love the Witenagemot!? --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is true. Which means, in the unlikely event that the monarch harmed his or her subjects, or seized private property, or committed a heinous crime, the people have no legal means of defence. Say, for example (and I know this is nonsense) the Queen had been in a conspiracy to kill Princess Diana, who could bring her to account? No-one. At least in those 'awful' republics, the president may be impeached, because no person is above the law. We should be grateful for the nasty regicides for the idea that the nation is greater than its head. Yet we went back on that idea, ashamed as we were for the events of 1649.--Gazzster (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
My opinion of your person sunk after your comment about "being grateful to murderers". As to Diana, she was guilty of High Treason under the Treason Act of 1351: "... violating the Sovereign's wife, or the Sovereign's eldest unmarried daughter, or the Sovereign's eldest son's wife". The Queen does not seize private property even though she has the right to. But have you considered it the other way around. That parliament you regard so highly robs, yes robs Her Majesty of Her property time and time again without somuch a protest from the queen. Does anyone pay Her Majesty rent for the use of her royal palace of Westminster? Does she get the money raised by the entrance fee's of the Tower etc. Indeed if the monarchy were to be abolished would HM get to keep Buckingham, Windsor, Sandringham, Balmoral, Westminster, St James, the Tower, The Royal Art Collection, The Duchy of Lancaster, The Crown jewels, the cullinan, the crown copyright to King James Bible...--Cameron (t|p|c) 14:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Aren't we veering off the topic gentlemen? The topic being de jure reigns. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If the sources state both a date from which the ruler had practical authority, and an earlier date from which they said they had authority, then the start of practical authority can be stated as the start of their "rule" and their statement of backdated authority can be mentioned. There is no conflict there so long as both can be sourced, but the start of practical authority is clearly of primary importance to an encyclopedia as practical authority has real effects. The meaning of the term de jure will be unclear to some readers. It should be dropped in favour of plain English. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be wise to avoid the term altogether. It is practically meaningless.--Gazzster (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree, for the simple and demonstrable fact that the concept as applied here involves speculative POV, and a statement that doesn't involve self-evident fact backed by consensus is no good as such.  RGTraynor  13:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
De jure reign has gotta go. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree. De jure is just a legal fiction. So de facto I presume you accept that the English state became the British one in 1707? TharkunColl (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The Kingdom of England & the Kingdom of Scotland merged to become the Kingdom of Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
De jure, yes. But what actually happened in practice? TharkunColl (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's see what others think. No need for us to get into another stalemate on this topic. Remember it's them, you have to convince. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we agree on what to do about rulers who backdate the start of their rule for starters? Other discussions can follow. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, we can note that certain rulers and/or their loyalists claim their rule started from a certain date before they exercised practical power. As is done in Charles II. But such a date should not figure in their reign span.--Gazzster (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's the best approach. However, the word "claim" shouldn't be used because it's a word to avoid. We could write that they "said" or "stated" or perhaps "declared" it. Any objections to that approach? Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, she has such a hard lot

  • I didn't say anything about murderers. Charles Stuart was tried by a court, and given a fairer trial than his Star Chamber had given many of his subjects.
  • So Diana could be charged with High treason, but Charles could continue with his little bit on the side?
  • She has a right to seize private property? I didn't know that.Tough break.
  • I doubt Parliament robs HM's property. The Crown Jewels, Palaces, etc, don't belong to her. They are the property of the Crown,not of an individual monarch. She could no more dispose of them as Benedict XVI could sell St Peter's. And I doubt one of the richest and least taxed women in the world has any serious cash flow worries.

But all that aside, in 1649 Parliament was the lawful authority in the land, because there was no other.--Gazzster (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Answer to point one: I merely quoted your approval of the regicides. As to him hunting down his fathers murderers, would you not? Answer to point 2: I thought you liked the rule of law? There are not laws regarding the son of the sovereigns affairs. Point three: HM has the right (within the UK) but does not excerise it. As to 4: The pope was certainly allowed to keep all of his inheritance. He did not inherit St Peters. I sympathise with HM. It is unlawful for the goverment to seize family Palaces as long as there are living relatives. HM forefathers earned the crowns, palaces etc. I am sure you got to keep your inheritance? Whether inheritance is a small cottage or a vast palace, surely noone has the right to take it away? I think the queen has had "a hard lot". Nine million a year have to cover her children and granchildren too. And royals never get to retire. How many people aged over 80 do you know who work nearly every day of the year? Also the Duke of E and their Royal Highnesses do not get paid for their work. --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is quite the right place to discuss these things, but hey, I'm enjoying myself. Do I like the rule of law? I like laws if they're good laws. But I think you've sort of conceded my point about the nation being greater than its head. How could Parliament dispose of the Sovereign's 'inheritance' if Parliament were not the supreme authority in the land? In 1649 the king was in captivity, still plotting against his people. His son was on the continent, of the same mindset. There was no authority beside Parliament to assume rule of the realm. And the sovereignty of Parliament was exercised after the Restoration time and time again: it was Parliament which invited William III and Mary II to rule England (it did not ask the consent of James II to do so); it was Parliament which set the conditions for their reign, and it was Parliament which altered the succession. Her Majesty may retore any time she wishes, as do monarchs in Europe. But that's her decision. If she wants to work till she drops, good on her.--Gazzster (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

She is/was angry with Edward (her uncle) for the rest of her life for abdicating. It contibuted to the death of her father. She will never abdicate she swore before god to serve her people...and she is very religious--Cameron (t|p|c) 15:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
That's understandable. But it is her own choice.--Gazzster (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Never say never; it's highly unlikely, she'll abdicate. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi dude! How's it goin?--Gazzster (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Very good; Parliament can depose the Queen and/or alter the succession without her consent. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course. Which means the idea of a de jure only reign is a nonsense.--Gazzster (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You miss the point exactly. De facto, I admit, she could be desposed. But de jure she could only be disposed with royal assent. Or would you care to cite a British law that states the royal assent no longer necessary? I shall be very interested to hear it. --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
When did Henry VI gives his consent to be deposed in 1461 or 1471; howabout Edward IV in 1470; how was Charles II's succession delayed?; howabout James II's consent to being deposed; whatabout James II's son & grandsons being barred from the throne? GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep--Gazzster (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel we ought to end this dicussion. It isnt leading to anything so long as it is just us. I grow weary of the repetition. --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed; PS- If Edward IV was proven illegitimate? the UK's current rightful monarch would be that fella living in Australia. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
What fella?--Gazzster (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Mike Hastings. If you believe that you'll believe anything. --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Shame on the usurper Elizabeth II; long live Michael I. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Michael would never have been king. No Scholars have endorsed the Michael I theory...because it is lunacy. see the awful programme on you tube and see how flawed it is! --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm just kidding. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
King Michael. Cool. I think I saw him on telly. There's a Pope Michael I too.--Gazzster (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You may have seen Romania's last monarch. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Accession Council

This talk of de jure and de facto is seriously misleaing. Under English constitutional law prior to the Act of Settlement of 1701, the new monarch had to be proclaimed by the Accession Council, which is basically a special meeting of the Privy Council (formerly known as the Curia Regis, and before that as the Witan). The Privy Council is led by the senior ministers of state who are also leading members of parliament. Needless to say, no Accession Council took place on the execution of Charles I in 1649, so legally speaking England had no king. Incidentally, the Accession Council still meets but since 1701 its role has been ceremonial. TharkunColl (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically, Parliament is the law of the land. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The Accession Council announces the succession, but its authority is not required for a new monarch to succeed.--Gazzster (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed; when the monarchy 'is not' abolished? succession is automatic in the UK. Elizabeth II succeeded on February 6, 1952 (not February 8). GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
That is absolutely true since the Act of Settlement. But prior to that, the council was the legal inauguration of the reign. Which is why monarchs did not succeed immediately. TharkunColl (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
If that's the case? Then there's alot of English monarchs whose reign dates are inaccurate. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
They would hold the council as soon after the monarch's death as they could. In many cases the council was already sitting while the monarch was on his deathbed. This was to ensure a smooth transfer of power. TharkunColl (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Phew! That's a worry off my mind. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Practices changed of course over time. In the earlier part of the middle ages they might leave it till the next day or even a few days. TharkunColl (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Such brief throne vacancies were kept from the public (of course). GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It didn't really matter. In those days the kingdom could trundle along for a few days or even weeks with no one actually running it. TharkunColl (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, Charles II was proclaimed three times: twice in 1649, at London and Edinburgh, and in 1660. [8]--Gazzster (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Not by the Accession Council (at least not the 1649 English "proclamation" - I don't know what the Scottish legal position was). The "proclaimers" were a bunch of royalists heading into exile. TharkunColl (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I see.--Gazzster (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Side note Is it accurate to say that in England, Edward I's accession was the first uncontested? GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
According to this same site [9] the first Accession Council was held in 1603. Before that, the new monarch made the proclamation himself. But of course he or she would have needed the support of the LOrds temporal and spiritual. Which of course Charles Prince of Wales did not have. Dunno about Eddy.--Gazzster (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - the term "Accession Council" is not medieval. The proclamation was simply done by the Privy Council (under whatever name it happened to be called), usually headed by the new monarch himself. As for Edward I being the first uncontested accession, in pre-Norman times there was actually something like a genuine election in the Witan (from a fairly limited number of candidates), so technically most or all were probably contested. TharkunColl (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Altough similiar the Curia Regis are not a continuation of Witenagemot! --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
They had the same function, though the Curia Regis's powers were seriously diminished. TharkunColl (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Seriously so! You got it ; ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you move it here? Each monarchy is different. In particular, the English monarchy never succeeded in rising above the law. I think few other monarchies could claim this. And this is also, no doubt, why the English monarchy has survived. TharkunColl (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The English monarchy ceased to exist in 1707; it 'merged' with the Scottish monarchy to become the British monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Call it what we may, the monarchy of the UK succeeded the English and is still so identified as English by the English, Scottish and Irish themselves. And as Thark says, it has survived because the principle of 1649, that no individual is greater than the nation, has become part of constitutional law.--Gazzster (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
If the UK monarchy succeeded the English monarchy? then it succeeded the Scottish monarchy aswell. This is an old argument at List of British monarchs, where at least two attempts to merge with List of English monarchs was overwelmingly 'rejected'. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting anything like that. I'm remarking that in common parlance the monarchy is identified as English. But ignore that if you want: consider our point, that the monarchy is not above the law. It does not possess the sacred, absolute powers that Cameron seems to suggest it has.All this talk about the royal assent? The royal assent is only the instrument required by convention to give validity to Parliament's will. The Sovereign is constitutionally bound. She is not to refuse her assent to the expressed will of Parliament. It may not be enshrined in law but it is a constitutional expectation nonetheless. If in the unlikely event the Queen refused the royal assent? Well, it has never been tested, but I'd say it's a safe bet Parliament could proceed to pass a Bill to depose her, without requiring her assent. --Gazzster (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree fully, Parliament is the law of the land. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we've gone off the track a bit, but I think we've demonstrated that this de jure stuff is nonsense, for England at least.--Gazzster (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
For all monarchies IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

1603-1707 Scottish Title

From 1603 'til 1707; was the Scottish Title - 'X of Scotland' (instead of 'X of Scots')? GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It was King of Great Britain. TharkunColl (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Now cut that out, giggle giggle GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It varies really but after some point it seems Scotland ("Rex Scotiæ") was used rather than Scots ("Rex Scottorum"). I think insisting upon "Scots" as the style after 1603 is intellectual snobbery (maybe not even intellectual after that point) or even back-styling. I simply don't see where Scots was primary usage even if it alternated with Scotland on occasion. England, Scotland and Ireland is the form I have always seen, not England, Scots and Ireland. Charles 21:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

So it's best to use ..of Scotland from James I and VI to Anne? -- GoodDay (talk)

The point is, if you're looking for the actual title used by James I onwards, it was King of Great Britain. TharkunColl (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The English & Scottish Parliaments said 'no'. Anyways, I'm gonna replace ..of Scots with ..of Scotland at those mentioned articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to parliament what the monarch calls himself, because that comes under the royal prerogative. The parliaments simply said no to political union. To call James "King of Scotland" is an anachronism. He may well have been king of Scotland, but he did not call himself such after inheriting England (actually, to be precise, the change in title came in 1604). TharkunColl (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
But even though he styled himself as King of Great Britain, he didn't style himself as "King of Scots". To be most accurate I would simply say "King of Scotland", which he was. I think most scholarly looks will acknowledge what he styled himself but they won't extend it to take away from the fact that he was James I & VI. Charles 22:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
King with a small "k" perhaps. The double numeral, I & VI, was also part of the royal style. Monarchs, basically, can call themselves what they like. TharkunColl (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain that if you were to move the articles to ..of Great Britain? Such changes would be reverted. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"James I & VI of Great Britain and Ireland" would certainly more closely resemble what he actually called himself (though we can ignore France since his rule there was non-existent - unless you count the Channel Islands). TharkunColl (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Tharky but, Queen Anne was the first Monarch of Great Britain (thus the name of her article). GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I assure you that she wasn't. It was James. What happened under Anne was a unification of parliaments. What happened under James was a union of crowns, as it has always been called. TharkunColl (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You've yet to get consensus for all of this, though. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have a copy of the King James Bible look at the title page and you'll see that James - in his own words - calls himself King of Great Britain. It is also worth noting that the official royal website begins its combined list with James, not Anne. This business about states and statehood was not as clear cut in the 17th century as it is now, because it's essentially a modern invention anyway. TharkunColl (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the other editors you must convince, in order to get a consensus for such changes to the related articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the point? Style of the monarchs of Scotland explains that "rex Scottorum" and "rex Scotiae" were both used. It's like with the English stuff. Henry I, for example, wasn't "king of England", but our article says he was. That's near enough right that there are other things that should be worried about instead. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the style ...of Scots changed to ...of Scotland with James VI's succession to the English throne in 1603; that's all. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The Handbook of British Chronology says "king of Scotland from 24 July 1567". I'd imagine that can be relied upon to be technically correct, even though conventional usage is king of Scots. But that's a tedious route to take. Does it matter if so-and-so was king of Scotland or of Scots, of England or of the English, of France or of the French? A can of worms really. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You can change them back to ...of Scots, if you want. It's not something, I'd raise a fuss over. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with TharkunColl. The actual title is (and remains until this day) the prerogative of the sovereign. Parliament has no say at all in such a matter. Parliament merely said no to the idea of joining the states...which are nothing to do with the title. The Queen could call herself 'Queen of the USA' if she so wished!

Everyone knows my views on this. Therefore, I've nothing to add. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yikes

A little while ago, I moved Paul, Crown Prince of Greece to Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece, which is the common name he's known by. In going to redirect so articles led to Pavlos instead, I came across a TON of redirects from his children's articles made by User:Timeineurope last September. I don't know how I missed these before. They're in every sort of state, with just the kids' names, or Prince/ss + their name, or Prince/ss of Greece, and then their full title except their names are without the hypens, and then mispelled, and my god, it's just a mess. Is there some sort of way to get rid of all of these? Like a speedy deletion without having to list every single article for speedy? Take a look, there are over 75 or so of these blank redirects, and NONE of them, save the ones that are the original pages and the kids' actual titles, are linked to from anything else. Morhange (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the article should be moved back to Paul, Crown Prince of Greece. Since, we're using Paul I of Greece, Constantine II of Greece, etc. GoodDay (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought consensus was for present-day royals to be at the place they are most commonly known as? I have rarely seen him called just Paul; it's usually Pavlos. Morhange (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, it's just MHO. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfc: Template talk:Greek Royal Family

I have initiated a Wikipedia: Request for comment about whether King Constantine should be referred to on this template as "HM King Constantine II" or as "HM The King of Greece". This is not intended to be a general discussion about Greek politics, but rather a discussion about how one man is commonly referred to in English-language publications. Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Queen vs the Queen

Throughout the United Kingdom and Commonwealth realms the correct form is 'The Queen' (capital 'T'). Why then do some articles respect this and others not? I would not dare to imply that The Queen is the only Queen but I am sure even the most stupid of readers will know that 'The Queen' in an article about, say, Buckingham Palace refers to Elizabeth II and not Beatrix, Queen of the Netherlands! I merely believe that the style used in the countries she rules over should apply...or should we now start writing articles about the British Monarchy in American English? Surely Wikipedia:Style#Titles and Wikipedia:Style#National_varieties_of_English apply here!? PS: I started this discussion on Talk:Buckingham Palace but moved it here as it concerns all articles related to The Queen. --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

While the form in the Commonwealth realms might be "The Queen", the form "the Queen" is not incorrect either. We should write in the simplest form for the broadest audience. I think we should use "the Queen". — A Canadian. Charles 19:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, this is very much like a case of branding, where we don't use TIME for the magazine while they do. We aren't obligated to use "The" for the Queen either. Charles 20:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll point out something that I have mentioned on the Talk:Buckingham Palace page - there are at least three queens specifically mentioned in the article; to call them all "The" Queen is confusing to the reader. Risker (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The usage the Queen is preferable. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)Well, I certainly think the use of "The Queen" would be inappropriate mid-sentence, i.e. "...and then The Queen announced...". There is no guideline, but generally, I capitalise the Q in the articles I write (never the T unless it's a new sentence). But in the end, from a linguistic point of view, queen is a noun; I wouldn't over-generalise it when it doesn't relate to a specific queen (Victoria, Elizabeth etc). I feel "the Queen" is fine, but if a case can be made not to have it capitalised at all then I wouldn't worry too much, as long as it's consistent with the rest of the article. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that to use ' The Queen' in mid-sentence, as PeterS says, is not only inappropriate, it's daft. There is no justification for it, ever, except obviously if it begins a sentence. 'The' is not part of the Queen's title; and so there is no cause to capitalise it.--Gazzster (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, you may wish to tell that to The Queen's official webpage and all officials throughout the Commonwealth!--Cameron (t|p|c) 10:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Cam! Sorry, mate, but I have yet to see any literature that uses 'The Queen' in mid-sentence. To use it would seem sycophantic. Wikipedians are not obliged to observe the pecularities of royal courts. '..the Queen' answers to the purposes of an encyclopedia.--Gazzster (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh Lord, don't call me Cam, it's short for Camilla. Point taken, though I still don't agree! --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"We should write in the simplest form for the broadest audience." Yes, that's sort of the thrust of my argument too. Whether or not the T is capitalised in the UK is sort of immaterial; WP has global reach and thus should apply to a global audience. Do we have consensus here? Further discussion needed? PrinceOfCanada (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Sorry, just on the back of this, I noticed the comparable situation with "The Crown" vs "the Crown". --Jza84 |  Talk  11:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed this. Basically the Queen and the Crown (or The Queen and The Crown, whatever) are both institutions in their own right. The The is a definite article; i.e., it's not a normal the. However, this goes back to the time of George I, when the German (specifically, the Hanoverian) monarchy merged with the English. The sons and daughters of the sovereign had, and still have, the use of the definite article by their name, as does The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh etc. So Princess Anne is The Princess Royal. However, this protocol has very much died away and is confusing to those unfamiliar with how this works. Although Buckingham Palace still use the article officially (so a message may read "Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal has conducted a tour of the United States"), we shouldn't adopt this in the articles. Foreigners will think it is Britocentric, and it certainly is, to a large extent. Use inside the palace gates is fine, but its usage there has no bearing on Wikipedia. It is, if you like, specialist "jargon" from the semantic field of British royalty. Wikipedia's aim is to provide an international and neutral encyclopedia, accessible to all, but not many people will be able to access these specialist protocols without research. So why bother? I say, let's just stick to "the Queen; the Crown"; it makes life so much easier. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I would agree on 'the Queen' and 'the Crown', but not on The Princess Royal--that title doesn't exist anywhere else in the world, so it's reasonable to use the definite article, I think. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but why use the definite article at all? The capitalised T may cause confusion, not the title itself. It may be simpler just to have "the Princess Royal" for articles. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You have a point. I disagree in substance (my feeling is that the article is part of the title for Anne), but agree that for the sake of consistency it should be uncapitalised throughout all articles. Consensus? Anyone disagreeing? If there aren't any disagreements by Monday (May 19), I'll start making the changes. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Renaming minor Dutch royals

I think we need to rename some of the minor Dutch royals. Many of the titles contain more than what is needed, including extra titles, etc, more than which is done for most other people. Specifically:

Ignoring the fact that many of the little counts and countesses shouldn't have articles, why are we tacking on all of these secondary titles, names and stylings? They aren't necessary. It isn't comparable to a case where we drop the territorial designation and then add "Mrs so and so" to the end of names, these are being treated as titles and styles in their own right and such use should be minimized. We don't have little Prince Christian of Denmark at a title of "Prince Christian of Denmark, Count of Monpezat", although we very well could (but we don't). Let's remove secondary titles from articles, shall we? Charles 03:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Standard seems to be that the highest title is used, and subsidiary titles are included in the article. However, perhaps we should include the current article name as a redirect to the name with the highest title? PrinceOfCanada (talk) 06:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed for the kids, not for the van Vollenhovens. According to the Dutch Royal House website Prince of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven is their actual title, I believe. I don't think the princesses need their surnames added on, but I do think the van Vollenhoven is part of their full title. Morhange (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It trails at the end like a minor title except in this instance it is only a surname. We don't need to use it anymore than we need to use anyone else's fully and complete titles. The name "van Vollenhoven" is entirely analogous with "Jonkheer/Jonkvrouwe van Amsberg" in this instance. It is secondary. Charles 07:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not take a quick look at the Dutch Wikipedia? They seem to have it entirely differently! --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be like going to German Wikipedia to name German royals. We have a different set of standards than Dutch Wikipedia for titling royalty. Charles 17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with (some of) what Charles is proposing, we can shorten their names. According to the Dutch book on titles, named "Titels, graden & titulatuur" (English: Titles, degrees & styles), written by GHA Monod de Froideville and EAS Crena de Iongh-den Beer Poortugael (experts regarding naming conventions of Dutch royals and nobility) the shorter and less formal names can be as follows:

  • Countess Luana of Orange-Nassau van Amsberg
  • Countess Zaria of Orange-Nassau (van Amsberg)
  • Countess Eloise of Orange-Nassau (van Amsberg)
  • Count Claus-Casimir of Orange-Nassau (van Amsberg)
  • Countess Leonore of Orange-Nassau (van Amsberg)
  • Prince Maurits of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven
  • Princess Marilène of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven
  • Prince Bernhard of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven
  • Princess Annette of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven
  • Prince Pieter-Christiaan of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven
  • Princess Anita of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven
  • Prince Floris of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven
  • Princess Aimée of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven

Concerning the counts and countesses, the book is a little bit confusing because they are naming countess Luana as "Countess Luana of Orange-Nassau van Amsberg" and the others like "Countess Eloise of Orange-Nassau" (without 'van Amsberg'). In the royal decree for naming the children of Prince Constantijn of the Netherlands (see [10], in Dutch) the children will have the title "Count(ess) of Orange-Nassau" and honorific "jonkheer (jonkvrouwe) van Amsberg", and the surname "van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg"

Regarding Prince Maurits, Prince Bernhard, Prince Pieter-Christiaan and Prince Floris, it's more stringent. There father is Pieter van Vollenhoven (a non-royal figure and also non-nobility) and they have the title "Prince of Orange-Nassau" only 'Ad Personam'. The children of the princes won't inherit the title. According to royal decree it was decided that the princely title has to be put in front of their surname, i.e. the surname of their father, separated by a comma: "<personal name> Prince(ss) of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven" or "Prince(ss) <personal name> of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven". See royal decree (in Dutch): [11]. So, here there is not much flexibility to shorten their names (or only by removing their titles, which I would oppose).

Concerning the wifes of these princes, see my discussion with Ariadne55 on my discussion site: User_talk:Demophon#Princess_Anita. We can remove their "maiden" surnames behind the surnames of their husbands. However, it is very difficultly to convince Ariadne55 about this.

Greetings, Demophon (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Demophon, thank you for shedding further light on this matter. I have to disagree though about the lack of flexibility with the Vollenhoven Princes of Orange-Nassau. It has been clarified that "van Vollenhoven" is simply a surname and as titled royals (ad personam or not), we do not need to include the surname either before or after the title. Being a prince obviously has rank over being just a member of Pieter van Vollenhoven's family. On the very same basis, we do not have an article titled Albert II Grimaldi, Prince of Monaco, although we very well could because he carries that name (Grimaldi). The title and surname are different things. We don't need to convince Ariadne, I have seen some of the user's edits and all we need is consensus. Everyone doesn't have to agree for their to still be consensus. Regarding the counts and countesses with Amsberg in their names, I believe their surname is "van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg" and that the title is "Count(ess) of Orange-Nassau". Again, two separate things. I believe the author mixed this up when writing out the titles. See also this newsgroup post referencing the Staatsblad about the issue of Prince Friso and Princess Mabel: Netherlands: Birth of a daughter to Prince Johan Friso and Princess Mabel. We should give their surnames in the articles but we should only use their highest titles. Charles 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Charles, about the latter, I agree with you. We will use their personal name + most important title (and drop the lesser one), i.e. only "Countess Luana of Orange-Nassau". This is not uncommon and reasonably valid. And I also think the author mixed some things up when writing out the titles, but the book was written when the idea was very new and uncommon. Regarding the discussion about the princes of the family "Van Vollenhoven", you convinced me by half. I understand the logics behind your reasoning, however till my knowledge the princeses are always portrayed as "Prince X of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven", thus title seperated by comma followed by the surname of their father. I can not grab the reason why, but it has to do something with the fact that their father is a commoner. To convince me fully, do you maybe have some links in which they are described with only the title and without the surname of their father? Demophon (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on naming French royals

Please follow this link: WT:NC(NT)#French nobility : name/title. Thank you! Charles 19:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability question

I reached this through a link to the royalty and nobility workgroup. Would like to know whether the stub Jacques d'Arc satisfies Wikipedia's notability guideline or or if it would be better to redirect it to Joan of Arc. Jacques d'Arc did nothing especially noteworthy in his own right; his sole claim to notability is an honorary grant of nobility (with no actual title attached) while his daughter was in favor with the king of France. If this is sufficient for Wikipedia's standards then Joan of Arc's siblings and their offspring ought to get stub articles too because they all received the same hereditary honor. Currently the only other member of Joan of Arc's family who has a separate article is her mother Isabelle Romée, who is independently notable for a successful petition to Pope Nicholas V. I'd lean toward a redirect for the father's name; please advise if that's correct. DurovaCharge! 06:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd lean towards keep. Notability is mostly established as Joan of Arc's father (see Lord Edmund Howard, who's only claim to fame is his daughter, Catherine Howard). Joan of Arc is sufficiently more notable than Catherine Howard in a core context. Also, he was granted nobility, which also implies notability. In British Peerage articles, the first creation is usually a keep reason at WP:AFD. This could turn into a solid article with the right sources and a bit of cleanup, so I'm personally against turning it into a redirect. However, others may disagree with me. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I would say notable only in the context of his daughter. Nobility is a notable group of people but not every noble is individually notable. If this article came up for deletion I would vote to merge it. Charles 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. To be really clear about this--Jacques d'Arc's grant of nobility was a quirk of French law and amounted to little more than a tax exemption. Unlike Lord Edmund Howard, Jacques d'Arc was not a courtier and received no actual title--not even baron. He was a farmer who owned about 50 acres of land and a small stone house; having a famous daughter didn't make him a rich or powerful man. He was illiterate, lived in an obscure village, and died not long after her. If fathering a saint is grounds for an article then that's a different matter. DurovaCharge! 08:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, oh I see, I'm clearer now. Well I suppose if you were to request deletion then it would be merged, so maybe that should happen? I suppose many saints don't have their fathers listed especially if they were non-notable in their own right, so I would probably !vote merge at AfD. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Length of Reign

I'm copying this from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty as PeterSymonds suggested in the discussion. Any insight would be valuable. Cheers, Lindsay 22:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that over the past few days a length of reign has been added to the infobox of some or all monarchs (e.g. Edward V). I have reverted a few that were on my Mediæval watchlist, but don't want to if they need to be there. It does not seem to be necessary, as in most cases the actual length of the reign is mentioned in the text (and, if not, the infobox already has the dates), and it does not, at a quick look, appear in the articles of other (non-British) monarchs. Is this something needed/wanted? My personal opinion is that it is needless and ugly, but i bow to consenus concensus general opinion. Cheers, Lindsay 20:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have been done in good faith but I think it is unnecessary, especially since two months (in the case of Edward V) is ambiguous (is it day of month to day of month, 8 weeks, 60 days or 21 days?) and it is inexact anyway... it is 78 days which is halfway between two and three months. I would revert while noting in the edit summary that you are reverting a good faith edit. Charles 20:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)I personally agree. I don't have monarchs watchlisted, but I don't think there has been any discussion here or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty. My rationale for non-inclusion is that the dates are provided; why clutter the infobox more? But if there has been discussion then a link would be helpful. Lindsay, I suggest you also take it up on the Royalty talk page (link above), as this is a right place but only for British royalty from 1714. The parent project deals with all royalty. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Maltese nobility

Good morning. I've recently put up for AfD a couple articles based around Maltese nobility (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buttigieg De Piro (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barone Francesco Gauci). The articles in question were created by User:Tancarville, who claims to be an expert in Maltese genealogy and has created many articles on various Maltese noble titles. Unfortunately, I can find no reliable sources quoting Tancarville or supporting his contentions, and I expect you folks are far more knowledgeable in such areas than I am. I'd appreciate looking over the AfDs and giving your input.  RGTraynor  14:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, the user you mention has, before, claimed to be a count yet dodges all questions about it. I am suspicious of works that cite "personal research papers". That violates WP:OR. Charles 18:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I've voted delete on both of them. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to roll them all up together into a single afd. It's about time this rubbish was cleaned up. andy (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I am against suggestions of merging even. This "stuff" serves to drop in a family name and advance what, as far as everyone can see, is a false claim to a comital title. Charles 20:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the suggestion was merge the articles, but merge the AfDs so the discussion remains on one page for all. I'd personally not worry about that now, but a link can be provided to the other perhaps. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to have one giant AfD for the reason that many such fail: that some of the titles and holders might pass notability standards, and the whole effort would splinter. So far, I've only AfDed the most egregious personalities, but I'm thinking the whole kit and kaboodle is bogus. Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility is cited as a precedent for keeping it all, but I'm thinking that it was a sloppy decision. To wit: the only evidence we have for any of this is Charles Said Vassallo's word for it, and this is the same guy who claims noble titles for himself and has created articles about himself and his family. I'm not quite calling Said-Vassallo a hoaxer (if so, he's an extraordinarily energetic one), but has anyone, anywhere down the line, verified his statements with reliable sources? Has anyone seen any of the several Charles Gauci books he cites? Do they say what he claims they do?  RGTraynor  21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I can state that no one I have encountered who has discussed this (yes, people do talk about it and they aren't saying good things...) has found any verification of any claims of titles that Charles Said-Vassallo makes for himself. In fact, he has been called out on anachronistic details (grants, etc for royal styles which didn't exist until two or so centuries later) in several of his "works" and he refrains for answering direct questions, some of which could probably be answered with yes or with a no. The most that Charles Said-Vassallo has offered is that he will "post the details", etc, when he "has the time". Charles 21:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Well he's had two years for one of them. ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
And more than that for some; his earliest articles date from 2004. I doubt we need to excise all of his articles outright, but he's had a free ride for an amazing length of time and that needs to stop.  RGTraynor  01:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about an erection but I am satisfied nonetheless :-) Charles 07:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hehe. I suppose even he couldn't find the necessary sources needed then. PeterSymonds (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I received the same notice ... because, of course, it's far easier to just quit after a parting accusation or two than correct the sourcing and COI problems.  RGTraynor  07:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Maltese nobility XfDs

The tally so far:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandre Moscati de Piro
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron of Bauvso
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barone Francesco Gauci
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buttigieg De Piro (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frigenuini
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giuseppe Said (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marchesi di San Vincenzo Ferreri
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principe de Sayd
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosalea Mompalao
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saveria Moscati
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa Gauci-Beaujolais
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barons di Baccari
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barons of Grua
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Count of Maimun
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marchese Drago
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Count of Ciantar-Paleologo

Fiddien, Selimbria, Vassallo-Paleologo family, Barony of Castel Cicciano and Count of Beberrua have been prodded.

I certainly welcome comment, and welcome as much any legwork anyone can do which might settle the notability and sourcing issues.  RGTraynor  15:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Alright ... I've prodded most of the rest; those I haven't have a small degree of notability, at the least, or enough of a claim to one that I don't feel comfortable with a prod ... and given that I've zapped over fifty of Tancarville's articles, that's enough of a scything. My thanks to those of you who've looked things over for me.  RGTraynor  08:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Annnnnd ... a fellow's trying to overturn a bunch of the deleted prods. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_2#Barony_of_Qlejjgha, if any of you wish to chip in with your own findings on the matter.  RGTraynor  13:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hoax articles?

Thoughts? Kingdom of Tavolara and Bertoleoni. Thanks. Charles 12:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. The Boston Globe has online searchable archives going back to 1872, and the turn of the century cites genuinely check out. However much this may have been a feeble joke on the part of the Sardinian locals, this is genuinely verifiable.  RGTraynor  08:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, the Gazette reference checked out, but didn't verify the title Kingdom. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, there's definitely confusion. I ran into several articles in the Globe, and one referred to the "Republic of Tavolars."  RGTraynor  13:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
There does seem to be some "title inflation" occurring. It might be possible that the head of the Bertoleoni family has the title prince, but certainly not king. Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Koháry

I have finally edited the page Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, renaming it and deleting the claims that he held the title Prince of Koháry. This is in response to older discussions on that talk page as well as the talk page for House of Koháry. Nobody has presented any evidence for Ferdinand or his descendants having the title Prince of Koháry (although he did assume the name). I'm not sure where somebody got the idea that he was the 4th prince; who exactly do they think were the 2nd and 3rd princes? (His father-in-law was the first and last prince). I have not yet made changes to the pages of Ferdinand's descendants since I expect that there may be some fall-out. Better to have the discussion first before changing all the pages. Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there does not seem to be any discussion that would reveal any unknown evidence. Should we start with changes to the rest of faux Princes Koháry? --Poko (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming discussion

Dear all, there is a discussion currently occurring at Naming conventions (names and titles) about "simplifying titles, through which it is suggested that we remove "prince" from royals with substantive titles. The proposal was "passed" after 12 days, with the input of only five editors. I strongly encourage every one here to take part in the discussion such that a properly-agreed solution can be reached. DBD 23:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with letting other people know about a discussion on another page. But this particular message violates the Wikipedia behavioral guideline against Canvassing which requires that messages are neutral and do not attempt to influence the outcome. A current Request for adminship has brought the issue of canvassing into the limelight; we should all be concerned to avoid inappropriate means. Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I strongly agree. Please take note of this in the future please. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe this was posted after half the discussion was archived and it all kicked off and so we should take into account the circumstances. - dwc lr (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Just because another editor does something which you consider to be "against the rules" does not mean that you or somebody else is justified in doing something else against the rules. This is not the school playground. Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa. Canvassing? I was doing no such thing! I was informing the interested community so as to encourage wider discussion. There is no part whatsoever, be it explicit or implied, of my note which is intended to sway said potential participants. DBD 15:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I personally don't see what's wrong with DBD's comment the discussion was "closed" and "passed" after 12 days with only five editors. I don't see any canvassing or anything that might influence someone all I see is someone relying the situation and attempting to get input from other editors due to the lack of it before the "close". If he had removed the quotation marks, italics and the word "only" it would of been ok then? - dwc lr (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the wording itself was fine, but it was the emphasis on the certain words that made it non-neutral, and his opinion about the discussion was made quite clear by it. That was the only concern. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Charles the Red

No doubt some editors have noticed that Charles' username is now in red. That is because about three hours ago User:PeterSymonds (an admin) deleted Charles' pages at his own request. Presumably Charles has (once again) decided to leave Wikipedia. I can only assume that this is in response to some of the recent personal attacks on him including the most egregious where he was described as "behaving like a Nazi dictator". I will delete Charles' name from the membership list of this project. Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Nazi Dictator comment, at the ANI discussion, certainly didn't help matters. Here's hoping Charles will return. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, he did. And the bunfight begins anew... I obviously have a preference to what happens, but really? I would prefer that people stop being such complete wankers over the whole thing. That means everyone involved. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Judging by Mcferran's comment "once again" I imagine this is not his first departure. So I would not be surprised to see a comeback. I personally won't miss someone who only a few days was accusing me of "having problems" and even as far back as August 2007 was attacking my intelligence and accusing me of possible substance. Regrettably I have to admit I do rise to it and perhaps took things too far in this case. - dwc lr (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh well, life goes on. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Very true. - dwc lr (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to make a statement before any further speculation emerges about Charles' redlinked userpages. Charles wrote, in an email to myself, that he wished to delete his archives and user talk pages. This was done to remove the history. He has effectively semi-retired, and will no longer be editing royalty-related articles on a regular basis, but he will remain on the project working to get an unrelated article to featured status. The move was not a sudden decision, and he had been contemplating this step for a while; it was also not in direct response to DWC LR's comment. He has left for himself, and not for those who have in the past been involved in conflict with him. This does not excuse any personal attacks; Charles has on occasion freely admitted that some of his proposals have given him a "radical" reputation, but even so, he acts in complete good faith. Disagreements are frequent on this project, but too many times there has been a {{retired}} template on userpages for similar reasons. For all the disagreements, for all the conflicts, let us remember that Charles did immense good for the project, and that this hatchet should be buried now. That is all I will say, and I'd appreciate it if the speculation was dropped and we all get back to what we're here for: improving the encyclopedia. Hopefully Charles will return when good and ready, and I hope that if that happens, we all try to work with him as an editor rather than constantly against him; disputes can be sorted out with a bit of polite conversation between talk pages. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, something about removing all the history feels off to me. I guess it's WP policy to allow it, but it seems--to me--to fly in the face of everything WP holds dear. Oh well. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

William II, German Emperor

There is a proposal to move this article to a new name. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

William III of England FAR

William III of England has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. – Ilse@ 10:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Marquis de Lafayette

Just to let everyone here know, Wikipedia:Spotlight is going to be working on the article Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette, which, per a talk page template, falls under this Wikiproject; while we will certainly not be the only ones editing the article during this time, if anyone here is interested in the article and would like to join our effort, we use the IRC room #wikipedia-spotlight. Thanks!--danielfolsom 18:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

as per

Just created the cat Kings of Madagascar as per your main page advice for new categories ... then I find Malagasy monarchs that already has lots of articles in it. My interest was only in the one king of a small area... but maybe I misunderstood the main page, or it needs updating ... or it needs sorting or .. thx Victuallers (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

FLC: List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty

The List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty is currently a featured list candidate. However, without supports or at least comments from editors, its nomination will probably fail. Therefore, anyone who's interested is welcome to leave his comments here. Regards. BomBom (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

List of X monarchs vs List of monarchs of X

The former seems to be the current preferred version at the moment. The current version, however, can be misleading. List of Irisih monarchs, for example, would indicate monarchs of Irish descent, whereas it really refers to English monarchs of Ireland. Any comments are welcome...Best, --Cameron* 21:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter if some are at "List of X monarchs" while others are at "List of monarchs of X"? Accuracy is more important than consistency. Opera hat (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm not opposed to it. That way British monarchs needn't be split into GB/UK monarchs and Canadian/Irish etc can be moved, just as suggested. ;) --Cameron* 19:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I think consistency is undervalued around here. Monarch of X indicates who was boss of the country, not their heritage. German Monarchs could call for the inclusion of, for example, George the whateverth of the UK, as he was German. That is a ridiculous example, I know, but it could be convincingly argued. Prince of Canada t | c 21:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I prefer List of monarchs of X. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:English royalty

Wikipedia:WikiProject English Royalty formed today. All interested users are welcome to add their name to the participants list and get helping! ;)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Biography (royalty)

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Order of the Garter

As experts in this area, perhaps you might be able to help resolve a debate currently occurring on the talk page of Bernard Montgomery, vis - are all members of the Order of the Garter automatically entitled to a state funeral? Much has been made in the UK of the recent controversy over the funeral arrangements of Margaret Thatcher (who is a member of the order). Any references you might be able to point to listing who is and isn't automatically entitled to a state funeral (my understanding was that only the monarch was, but this is the point currently under debate) would be very handy. Badgerpatrol (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

They're not entitled to a state funeral as of right, no.  RGTraynor  13:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
That seems to be the consensus, but there is still some debate. Could you point to some kind of supportive reference asserting that only the monarch is automatically entitled to one, if you have one to hand? Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Will do, when I get home. Although if you want to be quick about it, the State funeral article states that the only real legal distinction between a "state funeral" and a just-plain ceremonial funeral is that the former requires an act of Parliament. Given that the article also lists all the state funerals accorded to non-sovereigns in history and there have only been nine in the last two centuries, I'm quite confident in the assertion.  RGTraynor  14:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
It's only reserved for those of the highest National, I suppose you could say, status, influence, fame. Barring royals, who are accorded state funerals by custom, only those with a magnificent record of public service will even be considered. That does not necessarily include members of the Order of the Garter. For example, Mary Soames, Churchill's daughter, is a member, but it is highly unlikely she will be accorded a state funeral. this is a good breakdown of the customs in place. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

House of Hottinguer

Could someone from here please sort out Category:House of Hottinguer? The articles there are being created by User:Richotting, probably a family member, acting in good faith but who needs some guidance. Most pressingly, new titles should probably be assigned to some of the articles; formatting issues also exist. Biruitorul Talk 16:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Monarchy of the United Kingdom at Featured Article Review

Monarchy of the United Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 16:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Iain, I'll do my best to help out when I have more resources. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability –non-royal members of the Norwegian Royal family

It has recently been asserted by someone more knowledgable about these things than myself that the three daughters of Princess Märtha Louise of Norway are not princesses and not royal. They are between 0 and 4 years old and they are no. 5,6 and 7 in succession to the throne. Does anyone here have a reasoned opinion on how they fare vis-à-vis the notability guidelines. I can find no specific information on royalty or related persons in there. __meco (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not, it would seem. The over-zealousness to have pages for those in the line of succession is going a bit far. Just as a note to anyone reading, being in that list is not an automatic claim to notability. Some will be high enough in their own right to be listed; some will have done things in their lifetime which ascertains their notability. But many of those are ordinary people (royal blood weakens down the lines). Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Defining who is "royal" and who is not, can be a very vague. As to notability, WP:BIO states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". This is usually the case with most close relatives of the monarch. I would say being 5th in line to the throne is notable enough, even if you couldn't find many secondary sources! :) --Cameron* 20:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, perhaps. And I'm not even a deletionist! haha. Hmm, it's a grey area and one difficult to judge. Same with nobility. 5th in line is probably notable enough, but it depends how you read the article! Oh, dilemmas, dilemmas... PeterSymonds (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
FYI: The inclusion of another non-titled grandson of a monarch, with no other apparent grounds for notability, was tested two years ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Lascelles. -- Jao (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Somebody !voted per WP:ROYAL stating something about an "up to 8th in line to the throne" rule. I can't seem to find it though. --Cameron* 20:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
My concern is that these articles will tend to be pure tabloid apart from a few statements of public record. I cannot easily understand the need for separate articles on them as we're not really interested in the individuals at all. We know their names, rank in the order of succession, birth date and birth place. Unless they should become involved in events that make them otherwise notable, everything that will be written about them will be tabloid and have either the effect of perpetuating infringements on their privacy or promoting their future celebrity status (which I don't think is something WP should be part of). Even if a controversy with regards to their line of succession status should erupt, we still wouldn't be interested in them for who they are (except if the question should arise because they were deemed unfit to serve in the line). __meco (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This issue has also been brought up at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) independent of ny posting here, so unless the discussion limits itself to one place or the other, interested users may want to watch both pages. __meco (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Greece, Austria and other former royals

User:Hinzel has been changing titles for members of the Greek Royal Family. When I explained the fact that the members of the Greek Royal Family retain these titles out of courtesy despite the monarchy being abolished. I gave other examples where this is true, including the Austrian Imperial Family. Since then, Hinzel has moved the articles for Georg Ferdinand Zvonimir. I've moved Georg's article back, but Ferdinand's article was moved twice, so I can't move it over the redirect. Is there a way we can, I dunno, collectively figure out what to do on this matter? General consensus is that the children/grandchildren of deposed monarchs born after the monarchy is abolished still use these titles, right? Morhange (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I know much about this, but going by precedent, it would appear that titles should remain. The current Russian pretenders are recognised as Grand Dukes/Duchesses (even though the monarchy was abolished in 1918. But that's just my view based on other pretenders; there is a legal grey area when it comes to titles of pretenders. PeterSymonds (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
This was discussed earlier, see Wikipedia talk: Naming conventions for abolished titles - Vittorio Emanuele. Highly likely this issue was discussed many times more. The overall conclusion and opinion at Wikipedia regarding naming convention for abolished titles is that they should be included in the name. There is also the guideline for former or deposed monarchs, see guideline WP:NCNT, section Sovereigns, line 7. For example, Constantine II is at Wikipedia still referred as "King Constantine II of the Hellenes", and not as "Constantine of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg" (I even don't know his real surname, he also refuses to use this). With regards to the naming of members of former royal families in countries where nobilty or royal titles are abolished, by far the same point of view is followed, titles are used. See all the Wikipedia biographies of the German nobility and former royals. Demophon (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Royal Family Infoboxes

Hi all.

There's been a bit of an ongoing debate over at Template talk:British Royal Family. It was spurred by a bunch of disputed edits one editor made to the infobox (replacing an image, sizing, some other issues), and has evolved since then.

I have proposed that the Royal Family infobox be changed to a navbox, below:

Advantages:

  • Ensures consistency of layout across all articles;
  • Placement suggestion: Ancestry section. Where there is no ancestry section, one can be created or the box can go with the rest of the navbox stack at the bottom;
  • Allows for more images to be placed within the article;
  • Ends all (and any future) disputes about sizing, image, etc.

I wanted to try and hammer out the issue there a bit more before bringing it here, but it looks like things are essentially done there. Seeing as this would have ramifications across all royalty articles, I invite input from everyone here. Small tweaks would have to be made in some articles due to differences in how royal families are composed. [ roux ] [x] 18:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support naturally; I too was involved in an infobox discussion back in April. Much better all round. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I was looking at the wrong template for the discussion. Put bluntly, royalty pages are have got too many dropdown templates at the bottom of the page. I like the current one, because it does fill up space, which is better for living people who don't have any accompanying photographs. Therefore I oppose the new design, and apologise for misunderstanding 1) the template up for discussion and 2) the fact that this wasn't a straw poll. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose They're fine as-is. As-are. DBD 18:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support This format will allow for much better article layout. --G2bambino (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • My feelings are known from the discussions at the template's talk, but I strongly oppose. There is no reason to change a template that is perfect as it is.--UpDown (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Not everyone sees it as perfect. That's why I have suggested it. [ roux ] [x] 04:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Err (to both of you)... I wasn't really intending for a vote, more of a discussion... [ roux ] [x] 19:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Manuel de Godoy de Bassano y Crowe

Just a heads up here: I found a new article created on 4 November 2008 by Fjmoralesroca with the rather convoluted title: Manuel de Godoy de Bassano y Crowe (*Paris, October 31, 1828 +April 14, 1896), 3rd Prince of Godoy of Bassano, 3rd Count of Castillo Fiel. It consisted solely of random, unformatted, unreferenced text and appears to refer to the same person as the subject of Manuel de Godoy di Bassano y Crowe, 3rd Prince of Godoy of Bassano. I redirected it to the pre-existing article and copied the text of the new one to Talk:Manuel de Godoy di Bassano y Crowe, 3rd Prince of Godoy of Bassano in case it might prove useful to those trying to expand the article. I also put the {{WPBiography}} (WikiProject Royalty) and {{WikiProject Spain}} banners on it. Note that the same user has also recently heavily edited an article about the father of the subject: Manuel de Godoy di Bassano y Tudó, 2nd Prince of Godoy of Bassano. I've also put the project banners on that. Voceditenore (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move Anna of Swidnica - Anna von Schweidnitz

See Talk:Anna_of_Swidnica#Requested_move. Input welcome. -- Matthead  Discuß   14:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Ethnicity" in royal house infoboxes

I posted a while ago at Template talk:Royal house, but I really should know better than to use the TT namespace. This will hopefully draw more attention; anyway, the arguments are at Talk:House of Bernadotte#Ethnicity. Bottom line: I'd prefer an "origin" parameter, as the origin of a royal house is generally known and discernible, while the ethnicity of a royal house is often hard to determine, subject to change, and potentially POV. -- Jao (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had the same problem. In some cases even nationality is difficult to tell. I therefore, support this proposal whole heartedly! ;) --Cameron* 13:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Magna Carta and revolutions being removed from Template:Monarchism

Any outside input welcome at Template talk:Monarchism. Best, --Cameron* 21:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Prince Okam

I PRODed this article, it was nominated forWP:CSD#A7. I tagged it as an {Africa-royal-stub} Can anyone help this article?Synchronism (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Agustin de Iturbide

Anyone care to take at look at my rewrite of this and rate it?Thelmadatter (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the rewrite, well done! ;) --Cameron* 18:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

BD and lifetime templates

I suspect that many of those who use this page are writing or editing biographical articles. Could I encourage peopel to look at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 November 22? I have objected to destructive editing by a bot which is deleting all the BD templates and providing birthdate, and death date categories with defaultsort without any discussion. (Note I am not a member of this project). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Naming of German royalty -> English?

Hi, I'm not a member of your Project, but I happened to translate Karl III Wilhelm, Margrave of Baden-Durlach (my first bigger translation, please help correcting). But it seems, there is no consent about the names. When I look at the Category:German royalty stubs for example F: half of the Friedrich are Frederick, but the rest is still Friedrich. Sometimes they are only Fredericks in the heading, but not in the article, sometimes both. Maybe I did miss something here, but I think, there should be an agreement. Thank you. R0pe-196 (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: Is this project still active? It seems there are no answers for the last requests. And please archive the old postings. Thank you. R0pe-196 (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
In answer to your second question: yes, the project is still active; note that the last few requests are alerts about discussions elsewhere, so any comments would have gone there. In answer to your first, yes, it's generally standard practice; see William II, German Emperor and Frederick III, German Emperor. The German names are generally in the lead sentences. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick and good answer. Now I know, what it have to look like.
And sorry if my question sounded rude. I also have been "bold" and created archives for 2007 and until May 2008. If this is wrong, please revert, but nothing is lost, and the page is now more accessable. R0pe-196 (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC of possible interest ...

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox British Royalty#RfC: Scope and appropriateness of this template which may be of interest to the vast membership of this project. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Monarchy of Denmark

Hi all! I recently created the Monarchy of Denmark article. Any help would be greatly appreciated... Thanks, --Cameron* 18:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Polish noble families

File:200zl Dabrowski.jpg
Jaroslaw Dabrowski on a Polish communist-era banknote

It is my belief that noble families, like those listed in List of Finnish noble families and List of Swedish noble families are inherently notable. There is now a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family (3rd nomination)‎ about the notability of a Polish noble family.

This dicussion is going nowhere and neither side is able to convince me. It seems that the creator of the article is a family member and has a personal interests. On the other hand, I have a suspision that the opposition might somehow be politically motivated. The best known family members have been revolutionaries, even Communards. In the Spanish Civil War the Dabrowski Battalion fought for the republic. In communist Poland the name was revered; Jaroslaw Dabrowski even had his picture on a bank note. In modern Poland everything associated with communism is despised. This again has lead to neverending chain of arbitration requests on Eastern European issues.

Would you please comment on the notability of the Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło family. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Royalty_and_Nobility/Archive_3&oldid=1137367010"