Template talk:Royal and noble ranks
Contents |
[edit] Flaws
Did nobody else notice the title? King and Emperor are not title of the nobility. Also where are all the other numerous titles of nobility? Earl isn't listed, to mention just one...--Cameron* 15:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, you're right! I've noticed the title Ranks of Nobility, as well as the royal and imperial titles, but haven't realised that tose two don't go together. So, shall we remove King and Emperor or rename the template? Surtsicna (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- If we switch count with earl we can keep it as "British Ranks of X", however as it is it is rather Eurocentric. All of the titles in the following category need to be included really! See how many there are! Category:Noble titles --Cameron* 21:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Too many indeed. Can we have Template:Ranks of European Nobility, Template:Ranks of Chinese Nobility, etc? Do we need such templates at all? Surtsicna (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd actually prefer national ones. That way they can stay at their current size...--Cameron* 13:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please no. There are already far too many templates which subtly deviate from one another in the royalty / nobility domain - if this really gets someone's goat then a parameter should be added to selectively show or hide the disputable entries, rather than forking the template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd actually prefer national ones. That way they can stay at their current size...--Cameron* 13:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Too many indeed. Can we have Template:Ranks of European Nobility, Template:Ranks of Chinese Nobility, etc? Do we need such templates at all? Surtsicna (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- If we switch count with earl we can keep it as "British Ranks of X", however as it is it is rather Eurocentric. All of the titles in the following category need to be included really! See how many there are! Category:Noble titles --Cameron* 21:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Baronets are not nobility. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC) how many barons can a king like king john have —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.211.107 (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Shouldn't 'Lord' and 'Lady' be on this table?
- No, Lord and Lady are not ranks but styles. --L.Smithfield (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Shouldn't 'Lord' and 'Lady' be on this table?
-
-
-
-
My understanding is, in Britain at least, the nobility comprises peers (earls, dukes, viscounts, marquesses, barons) and gentry (baronets, knights, and 'gentlemen'). It doesn't included royalty.--204.40.1.129 (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- The ranks of Baronet and below are not noble in the British system. However, they (or their equivalents) may be considered as part of the lower nobility elsewhere (like in continental Europe). --L.Smithfield (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Infante should be omitted or replaced by Duque
I'm not sure Infante belongs here. It is not a rank, but an attribute of a person who is of the Spanish blood royal. It is somwhat like a Royal Duke in the UK, or the British meaning of "prince" as a close descendent of a sovereign. No one in the UK carries the style of prince except those in the Royal Family. It is not a rank.
In Austria and some other areas, the rank of Duke did not exist, and the title "Prince" was used as the name of the rank above Count. It is only for that reason that Prince is included in this table.
Spain has a rank of Duke: Duque, and I think we should be using that here in place of Infante. There are many Spanish families ranking as Duques, only one has Infantes. --StanZegel (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC) <3
- It makes no sense having duke and duque at the same time. Why include duque and not duc or herzog or vojvoda? Surtsicna (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Duke ahead of Prince
Why is Duke ahead of prince as in many countries the title of Duke ranks below Prince in every circumstance? --Lemonade100 17:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Nobile
Given the article gives the definitions of Nobile as "an Italian title of nobility ranking between that of baron and knight", should not this be moved above Knight & Dame in the template? 78.26 (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Edit request from 156.98.14.252, 14 September 2011
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the cross symbol from the logo on the right of the page. Mirza's were not christian's to depict the cross.
156.98.14.252 (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Not done: It's just a fancy hat representing the fancy titles on this template. It doesn't mean anything with regard to the article you found it on. — Bility (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Edit request from , 18 October 2011
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Night and Dames are not noble title and the holder of such a title is a commoner not a member of the nobility. Information from my general knowledge and it has come up in my studies. Harrymallett (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Although Knights (and Dames) are not noble in the British system, they are considered noble (if only a part of the lower nobility) in some continental European nations. The lowest rank that is considered noble can differ in different nations. -L.Smithfield (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not done. Happy to reconsider if consensus changes. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Agree that Baronets, Knights and Dames not "noble", rather "chivalric", which adjective is listed by Collins Dict. Have therefore expanded title of infobox to include the latter. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC))
- Not done. Happy to reconsider if consensus changes. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Viceroy
I propose deleting Viceroy, as this is royal official, not noble title.--Yopie (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- So do I. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
-