Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

The alleged Louis XIX & Henry V of France

I'm still concerned about the Infobox content & general content of those 2 articles. It's made to appear as thought Louis & Henry were Kings of France. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

Announcements
  • All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
  • Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
  • No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.
Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Chrysanthemum Throne

This subject seems to generates minor, intermittent controversies -- see Talk:Chrysanthemum Throne#Off-topic again. There are perennially unresolved questions about what needs to be considered "off-topic"? I wonder if you might have a constructive suggestion about how to transform this recurring problem into a non-controversial article? --Tenmei (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Bais Rajput

Hello, please rate Bais Rajput. Come under the category of Rajput clan Thank you. --BhainsRajput (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Japanese shoguns

See related thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Tokugawa shoguns.

An interested editor recently modified the succession boxes for the 15 individual articles about the 15 Tokugawa shoguns.

Aumnamahashiva substituted "regnal" succession boxes; and an arguable rationale for those edits has been presented succinctly in the above-referenced thread. A fair summary of the argument would focus primarily on the functional sense in which the Tokugawas were hereditary autocrats. Some in WikiProject Japan suggest that a regnal succession box is, by definition, misapplied. Even though the terms "reign" and "rule" are conventionally used by scholars, neither the Tokugawa, the Ashikaga, the Hōjō nor the Minamoto shoguns were "royalty" as that term is defined in Japanese history and culture.

At this point, it seems telling that WikiProject Royalty have not encompassed any shoguns within the ambit of your project. I would argue that this view is justified, appropriate, best.

However, in deference to Aumnamahashiva's work -- and anticipating that similar issues are likely to come up again and again, it seems like a good idea to push this thread a bit further.

My thinking is this: In future, referring to WP:WikiProject Japan#Tokugawa shoguns might be a convenient time-saver. It might help avert the evolution of unproductive quandries similar to this one. If a contribution from one or more members of WikiProject Royalty can help improve the prospective utility of the thread's discussion, that would be welcome indeed.

This matter can be resolved without worrying too much about whether editors in your WikiProject have useful contributions to offer, of course. On the other hand, it may be that collaborative input from a somewhat unexplored perspective will prove invaluable.

Please consider this as an open-ended invitation .... --Tenmei (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No comment could be construed to mean not much interest in this topic? --Tenmei (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI of England

We need opinons at Henry VI of England & Charles VII of France. Should we or should we not, consider Henry as having been King of France. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Messing with the Wittelsbachs

Someone has been messing around with the articles on various 18th Century Wittelsbachs, inserting a fictitious brother for Charles II August, Duke of Zweibrücken, and altering the articles of his parents. What is to be done? Lec CRP1 (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This! Thanks for noticing this vandalism. Regards, --Poko (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion requiring expert input

Hi all. I've started a deletion discussion here regarding Nikolaus von Habsburg-Lothringen. Some research online has indicated to me that the whole thing is a fairly elaborate hoax. However, I could be wrong. I invite experts here to weigh in on the discussion. If I'm wrong I'll be happy to withdraw the AFD. //roux   01:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI

Hello.I would ask oppinion from you if Henry should should be mentioned as a french monarch since he succeded Charles VI and became king of france as apart of the double-monarchy which historions call.THATS my personal oppinion.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Order of Precedence

Contributors to this project may be interested in a discussion at Talk:Order of precedence in England and Wales#Knights of the Garter and the Knights of the Thistle regarding the inclusion of peers who are also knights of those orders. -Rrius (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Family seat

To my eyes Family seat is no more than a slightly waffly dictionary definition, and since there isn't an equivalent article in Wiktionary my gut feel is that {{Copy to Wiktionary}} with a {{wi}} soft redirect would be the most appropriate way to handle it. However, I note that several articles link to it and I thought that people here might be interested in further discussion over on Talk:Family seat ? Le Deluge (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Template: English and British monarchs

There's a discussion on weither or not that Template should have the British monarchs removed from it & then renamed Template: English monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Queen Anne FAR

I have nominated Anne of Great Britain for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. john k (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Another "names of German royalty in English Wikipedia" question

Apologies if this has already been covered elsewhere in the discussions. I recently created a page on one of the young Thurn und Taxis princesses (Princess Elisabeth of Thurn and Taxis (b. 1982)) and it has been pointed out to me that their true family name is of course "Thurn Und Taxis" and therefore she is "Princess Elisabeth Von Thurn Und Taxis", yet in most of the current English Wikipedia articles about family members, this is given as "Prince" or "Princess" of' Thurn and Taxis. I just want to ask if this is for a specific reason, or is there a discontinuity between this and the use of "Von" for other well-known Germans? To give just a few examples from English Wikipedia, Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg, Otto von Bismarck and Gerd von Rundstedt. It does seem odd, because clearly these are German aristocrats and those are surely their names? Thanks for any help. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

All such names are a total mess. I don't think there's any standard at all. I think in this case we should use whatever name she herself writes under. john k (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion John, I moved it, but of course it now seems that all of the Thurn und Taxis family members should be thus named, at the moment most aren't. I would be happy to do these renamings but don't want to if it's needing more discussion. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it is very simple; it is the English Wikipedia so the preference is to present the titles in its English form. If it is translatable then translate it; if it is not translatable or with doubt, don't translate it. Also use other (official) sources that support your translation. I'm Dutch and a lot of Dutch royal titles are simply translated into English, for example "Prins van Oranje-Nassau" into "Prince of Orange-Nassau" or "Prins de Bourbon de Parme" into "Prince of Bourbon-Parma". But some titles are specifically Dutch like Jonkheer and those are kept in their Dutch form (not translatable). To my opinion and with the knowledge of the German language, in this case "Von" is very easily translatable into the English "of" and "zum" into "to". But theirs one exception, a lot of royal titles in German countries and also the Netherlands are "complete" titles like "Prince of the Netherlands" and therefore easy translatable. However noble titles are commonly a construction of a combination of a title like "Count" with the surname like "Van Heeckeren". In this case it is not easy to translate "van" into "of" because the van is part of the surname. So, 1) looks if it is translatable, 2) supported by other (official) sources, and 3) looks to the surname. Example the German "Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg" has to be translated into the as much as possible English "Claus Schenk, Count Von Stauffenberg" I (unless he is known specifically only known with his German name also in the English language countries, see point2). Demophon (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts Demophon. I am not sure I understand all of the points you made, but I think I understand in general terms. If I follow your logic correctly, the Thurn Und Taxis would be known in English generally as Von Thurn Und Taxis, since as in your point 2, that is what they are generally called in English news articles, etc. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
We should only translate the name if recent English language sources actually do that. Also, "van" and "von" are absolutely not considered "part of the surname" in continental Europe like they are in the United States. john k (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Erics of Denmark: Namng conventions

A recent undiscussed move of Eric of Pomerania to Eric VII of Denmark brought to my attention the fact that all the Erics of Denmark are located at their numerated titles. A short search of google books shows that at least some of them are pobably much more widely known by their cognomens and that according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Sovereigns they should be located by their cognomen.

The results of my search are such:

Eric I of Denmark 44 hits - Eric the Good 332 hits - Eric Ejegod 86 hits (in English language books)
Eric II of Denmark 48 hits - Eric the Memorable 30 hits- Eric Emune 61 hits (in English language books)
Eric III of Denmark 27 hits - Eric the Lamb 89 hits
Eric IV of Denmark 33 hits - Eric Plovpenning 79 hits
Eric V of Denmark 28 hits - Eric Klipping 85 hits
Eric VI of Denmark 51 hits - Eric Menved 389 hits
Eric VII of Denmark 111 hits - Eric of Pomerania 651 hits

I would suggest that at least Eric I, Eric VI and Eric VII be moved to Eric the Good, Eric Menved and Eric of Pomerania respectively. For some of the others it might be a matter of discussion and consensus whether they should be moved or whether they should stay.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A broad problem

I remember back when I started on wikipedia, many years ago, there were a lot of articles on less famous royals which were little more than genealogical entries. Six years later, this remains a serious issue - there simply seems to be little effort to insure that we have decent coverage of less famous continental royalty and high nobility. For example, until a few minutes ago Ernst II, Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg was at a nonsensical title (someone misread a genealogical website to think he was called "Maximilian VII") and purely genealogical - it noted his parents, that he was a grand-nephew of Queen Victoria, his wife, and his children, and gave his dates of birth and death. Those unfamiliar with him would be forgiven for thinking that he is some random figure of little importance, whose article should be deleted as non-notable on the premise that Wikipedia is not a genealogy.

But he actually was a relatively significant figure, as a read through of his biography at the German Wikipedia suggests (I largely paraphrased from the German Wikipedia to expand his bio). Most notably, he served for five years as regent of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, but he also served in the German foreign office; as an assistant to his father, who does not have an article but was governor of Alsace-Lorraine for thirteen years; in the Reichstag for several years; in various capacities during World War I. He also became a member of the Nazi Party. The current article is still a stub - there's no real detail on any of his activities, and hopefully at some point someone will expand the article into something really good.

But it seems to me that one of the most important tasks for this project, assuming there's any activity to it at all (which is not really in evidence), should be to try to make some effort to insure that articles about people who actually are of more than purely genealogical significance indicate that in some way. As it stands, there's a lot of articles within the purview of this project that are simply terrible articles. Some of them are probably hopeless - there's really nothing to say about Emma Tallulah Behn or, to take an older example, James Stuart, Duke of Cambridge besides genealogical information, and these articles will likely never be much more than stubs. But there's plenty of royals and high nobility who actually did do stuff, who participated prominently in the political or social life of their time, but whose Wikipedia article gives no indication of this. It'd be great to try to make some effort to address this; perhaps we could make some effort to catalogue what the problem articles are, and then collaborate to improve them? Usually British royalty articles are going to be in pretty good shape. But the state for many articles on continental royalty is dire. Anyone interested in working on this? john k (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no. john k (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of List of viceroys of New Spain

Hello! I am thinking to rewrite the list of Viceroys in the article, that will appear like the one I did here. Any reaction? Am I still doing good so far (without conflicting history?) My list is still not done yet, but I want to know if the division of sections I made is valid.--JL 09Talk to me!msg 4 u! 16:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The format is certainly more attractive than that of the current article. But what does the Spanish Armada have to do with New Spain? Why should that be a breaking point? I also don't like that viceroys who served multiple monarchs are listed only with the monarch who appointed them. john k (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Source

Can [1] be considered a reliable source for calling someone a Prince? See Talk:Rita_Jenrette#European_Titles for some context. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 15:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it would be improper for me, the compiler of the site www.chivalricorders.org, to answer in the affirmative since any "self-publication" on the internet is apparently to be dismissed as worthless, whomsoever is the author. I have attempted, without wishing to blow my own trumpet, to state my credentials because in the face of the challenge over my assertions regarding the titles of the Boncompagni-Ludovisi family I had no choice. As yet there are no degree courses in the English speaking world on royalty or nobility; however, after some 40 years of publishing on this subject in numerous scholarly and specialist magazines and reviews, as well as being a member of the Royal Academy of Heraldry and Genealogy in Madrid, having published three books on Orders of knighthood and numerous other articles on the subject, and been widely consulted on these issues I do believe that I can legitimately assert my exspertise in these matters. Particularly since I have a considerable library on the subject on which I am able to draw, which includes just about every work of any merit published on Euriopean nobility in the last 200 years.

Project name

Despite the rename from Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Royalty → Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty almost two years ago, the main page still styles itself as the "Royalty and Nobility Work Group" of WikiProject Biography. Would there be any objection to moving it back as a subpage of WikiProject Biography?

Either way, can this project/work group be renamed "Royalty and Nobility" to more accurately reflect its scope? PC78 (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 Moved — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Earl of Clare

There's a dispute here that could use some fresh input from you folks. Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

After you were requested to give fresh input on the Earl of Clare article, your banner of approval was placed on the version which contained my material on the medieval earls of clare. Ignoring your support and because of the persistence of three persons, the article was eventually reverted to its original incorrect form. I offered a compromise and a re-style with a paragraph including the fact that some modern authors dispute the medieval earls. It was ignored. It is a shame that people with no expertise in this subject can harass and manipulate seemingly for its own sake. It seems to becomes a game to a few individuals instead of a search for truth. I fear Wiki's reputation could eventually suffer if this practice is allowed to continue.Mugginsx (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 69.183.159.106 (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Update to Template:WPBiography

Please note that priority assessments for this project are now added by using the |royalty-priority= parameter in the {{WPBiography}} project banner. Please refer to Template:WikiProject Biography/doc for full instructions on how to use the banner, or feel free to ask any questions on the banner's talk page. PC78 (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move: House of Laborde de Monpezat

Hi folks; there is a requested move discussion at Talk:House of Laborde de Monpezat#Move? that could benefit from the informed views that you may have. If a knowledgeable administrator or editor experienced with naming conventions would be willing to close the discussion, even better, but even just a little more discussion would be helpful. Thanks! -kotra (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, the discussion has now been closed. -kotra (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta

Howdy ya'll. Is there a possibility of getting this articles' title changed? Its current title is confusing, was he or wasn't he 'King of Croatia'. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's been changed to Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Inconsitancy in Swedish monarchs named Gustav

The six monarch articles-in-question: Gustav I, Gustavus, Gustav III, Gustav IV, Gustaf V & Gustaf VI. Why can't we decide on one type names: Say 'Gustav' & 'Adolph'? GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Naming

Isn't the article name Prince Frederik of Hesse wrong? First, it should definitely be Frederick. Second, could it be "Frederick, Prince of Hesse"? Or "Frederick, Prince of Hesse-Kassel" (written by the paper encyclopedia I used as a reference). Geschichte (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable nobility and hoaxes

There is currently an AfD for three hoax articles created by a kid from Lawrenceville School [2]. The kid has changed information at many other articles, but it was relatively easy to change it back. (Most of this was done by Bali ultimate.) Now here is problem #1:

  • Many of the articles changed by the hoaxter were completely unsourced. The only way a hoax can be removed from such an article is by reverting to a similarly dubious state.

Unfortunately this kind of hoax doesn't seem to be rare. I am sure I have heard of such things happening here before, and while making sure to clean up everything I found activity by another hoaxter in one of the articles affected by the first. To make such a hoax convincing, the hoaxter needs to inject incorrect information into existing articles. Which brings us to problem #2: We make it too easy for them. Here is why:

Is this the right place to ask for ideas how to address this problem? Hans Adler 15:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The obvious answer is to nuke all the unsourced claims and people. I know that what i was reverting was hoax info, but have no way of knowing without extensive personal research into a subject of no interest to me that what i reverted to was any better. There is zero verifiability on offer and that's unacceptable (leaving aside notability questions entirely).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but what do we do about Template:Former monarchic orders of succession? It appears that all articles linked from that template are unsourced. One of them has had an unsourced template for a year with no success. I doubt that we can nuke them. The problem is that the people who like this kind of information (I hope to find some of them here) apparently can't be bothered to source it. Hans Adler 15:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the template appears to be a navigational aid to entirely unsourced, unverifiable claims. I agree that an actual attempt to get rid of this crap would be opposed. My guess is some of that information is theoretically valid but most of it is not. How to tell which is which? There is no way.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, there are books about such things such as the Almanach de Gotha. There are also online sources that may or may not be reliable [3] [4]. But I am very thoroughly not interested in this stuff, so I am certainly not going to do the necessary verifying. My point is that some of those people who are interested need to do it. Hans Adler 18:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
In theory we could and should use Almanach de Gotha and similar books. I do own copies of this type of book and if I work on an article I will cite from there instead of an online source, but really there is a big problem of non notable royals and because of that it does make it too easy to insert false information. I would say that the Online Gotha is a reliable online source and if an article is created on a royal and they are not listed on the website I would be very suspicious. A lot of articles do need to be improved with the Line of Succession articles it most probably could be sourced about succession laws used to govern the succession but with some of lists I would think its hard to say who is actually in the line of succession as with Thurn and Taxis I removed a load of people because I have sources saying they are born of morganatic marriages for example. - dwc lr (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Maltese nobility redux

Good morning. Last year I was involved in XfDing a large heap of articles involving purported Maltese noble titles; the situation (which you can see a bit of in Archive 3) wound up in the permabanning of the original author, User:Tancarville, who claimed to be an expert in genealogy and sourced them all from his own original research. As some of you have seen, much of this has been recreated in two articles - Maltese nobility and Foreign titles of nobility in Malta - in staggering detail by User talk:Mobile historian, a relatively new user.

While I feel WP:UNDUE applies in thinking these articles need to be pared down by at least four-fold, I can see two enormous problems at first glance: that there are no inline citations, and that - ominously enough - almost every single external link and much of the sourcing comes from Tancarville's website. To quote myself from the earlier debate, "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?" Neither then or subsequently did Tancarville (Said-Vassallo) or anyone else come up with reliable sources attesting to his self-proclaimed expertise in genealogy, and given that, I'm no more inclined now to take his website on faith. Most of the rest of the sourcing is cited as coming from works by a Charles Gauci, who himself was the subject of some of these articles as a "noble," and who showed up as User:Count Gauci as an SPA in one of the AfDs, with phrasings oddly similar to Tancarville's; for instance, "Please see sense and make comments rather then delete" cropped up in both of their comments at various stages. I lack confidence in both sources.

So ... while WP:AGF applies, of course, do we have sources verifiable by other Wikipedia editors?  RGTraynor  15:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted back to a sane state (notwithstanding that what i've reverted back to is likewise unsourced and original research, it's at least 1/10th the length, formatted tolerably and not obviously self-promotional).Bali ultimate (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
If you care enough, I would open up an SPI case immediately. I don't care enough, but he's filling the encyclopedia with crap.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I am appalled by your behaviour and language. Disgusting!!! I have made a request for arbitration and I have nothing else to add. Good bye. Mobile historian (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

After reading this discussion, I feel as if I avoided the event of being an unwitting pawn in a sinister scheme! Mobile historian requested my evaluation of the two aforementioned articles; I basically told him that I couldn't do so. -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, more silly than sinister really. I don't edit these kinds of articles (had this watchlisted for another reason) but there is a problem with a lot of these nobility related articles that they're subject to lots of hoaxing, original research, unsourced insertions and the like. People like me come across obvious problems and revert them, but often what we're reverting to (while it may seem more plausible) is likewise often unsourced original research (even if unsourced original research with the best of intentions behind it). There are huge verifiability problems; that wikipedia tolerates so many thousands of unsourced articles is a problem with no easy remedy.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Nobility is not notable if they are not verifiable. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
In theory. Good luck getting the unsourced content deleted though.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Well ... here are my thoughts. First off, we don't know that Mobile historian is a sockpuppet for Tancarville and WP:AGF still applies. Rather than having a guns blazing situation, I'd just as soon Mobile historian not only cut these articles back to a more standard length and either (a) come up with reliable sources satisfying WP:V and able to be verified by the rest of us, or (b) come up with reliable, independent, third-party sources verifying Said-Vassallo/Tancarville's and Gauci's credentials as recognized genealogists.  RGTraynor  22:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Just as a bit of a postscript,Mobile historian just won himself an indef block for sockpuppetry and abuse of editing privileges. Maltese nobility had already been reverted to the previous version, and I filed a G5 CSD on the other one.  RGTraynor  07:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Postscript II: a second spam/sock account has been found, which also has been meddling with Maltese articles, created at the same time as "Mobile historian," also pushing the maltagenealogy.com website, and also creating articles for Said-Vassallo's own family, touting them as "nobles." Details are at User_talk:LessHeard_vanU#Mobile_historian. The second account's been indef blocked.  RGTraynor  17:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Infanta Elena's divorce finalised?

Hi!

I have heard reports saying that Infanta Elena of Spain and the Duke of Lugo have signed the divorce papers, but since I am unable to find the correct non-blog source, I opted not to update their pages. Here are the sources: [5] - stating that she is no longer married, [6], [7].

Thanks, 14:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Prince Phillip?

Is 'The Prince Phillip' correct? I ran across an article which referred to His Highness as 'His Royal Highness, The Prince Philip'. Looking into this, I find his article also refers to 'The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh' although it is titled simply 'Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh'. Could someone enlighten me? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's correct in formal usage, but most usage is informal. Peter jackson (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
OK. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Royalty_and_Nobility/Archive_4&oldid=1087031943"