Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 375: Line 375:
::Okay. I was aware of that, I just wanted to know if there was a closer ancestor, but it seems there's not. Thanks for responding. - [[User:Therealscorp1an|Therealscorp1an]] ([[User talk:Therealscorp1an|talk]]) 01:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
::Okay. I was aware of that, I just wanted to know if there was a closer ancestor, but it seems there's not. Thanks for responding. - [[User:Therealscorp1an|Therealscorp1an]] ([[User talk:Therealscorp1an|talk]]) 01:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Rainier III & Constantine II 'were' sixth cousins. There's some re-marriages within the family tree. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 01:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Rainier III & Constantine II 'were' sixth cousins. There's some re-marriages within the family tree. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 01:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
::::He's the brother-in-law of the king's cousin, a fellow head of state and they sat on the Olympic Committee together. Some unsourced and trivial relationship is irrelevant. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 09:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:15, 5 March 2023

Shortcuts

Who awards the orders, decorations and medals?

I've opened an RFC up at WP:Orders, decorations and medals talkpage. Would appreciate input, there. GoodDay (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II, awarding orders, decorations and medals

Would appreciate some input at this RFC. -- GoodDay (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Edwardian" vs. "Edwardine"

Hello, I was hoping you all might be able to offer your expertise on a question of nomenclature. I am in the final stages of assembling material for an article on religious books (the 1550 and 1552 Ordinals) published under Edward VI's authority. Typically, these books are referred to as adjectively "Edwardine", but the more recent academic standard in referring to these texts seems to be "Edwardian". Since both seem conceptually acceptable, which is the more acceptable word so that I may adhere to the standards that you all have laid out? Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kansas Bear? Thinker78 (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Which date did Charles III's reign begin, in Oceania?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
King Charles III became monarch of various nations at the exact time of Queen Elizabeth II's passing. At that time, the date was 8th September 2022 in some of the affected realms and 9th September 2022 in others. At issue is the question of on what date King Charles III acceded to the throne in Oceania, and the RfC nominator framed the question as a simple choice between 8th and 9th September.
Not all of the RfC participants accepted this framing, and there was some discussion of using a footnote to explain the complexity, but this footnote option didn't get consensus. Therefore as closer I am confined to choosing between 8th and 9th September.
Taking into account all the !votes, including the one that wasn't placed in the "survey" section, and taking into account the sources (particularly the official Australian and New Zealand government sources that give the date of Her Majesty's passing as the 8th September even though it was 9th September in those countries), I see, somewhat to my own surprise, that there's consensus in favour of the 8th September. All the consequential edits may be made.
If I was an Australian or New Zealander, I think I would be somewhat annoyed by this, so I feel the need to apologise to any citizen of an affected country. I'm sorry. That's the consensus so that's how it is.
I do hope this helps. Any comments, criticism and complaints about this close should be directed to my talk page in the first instance.—S Marshall T/C 16:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which accession date in the infobox & article body, should be used for Charles III, at the
Monarchy of Australia
Monarchy of New Zealand
Monarchy of Papua New Guinea
Monarchy of Tuvalu
Monarchy of Solomon Islands pages?

  • A - 8 September 2022
  • B - 9 September 2022

GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey 2

A offial sources in these realms cite the 8th EmilySarah99 (talk) 09:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is not is in dispute at all. It has nothing to do with the proclamation of accession, or even the coronation. The issue is that when the Queen died it was 9 September in New Zealand. StAnselm (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This vote is a misunderstanding of the intent of the question. El Dubs (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. The nature of the "monarchy" status is a bit peculiar and symbolic, but it presumably includes respect for the official seat of that institution. On that basis I am I inclined to apply the timezone of the official seat of the monarchy for all jurisdictions recognized as subject to that monarchy, just as I would apply a Washington D.C. timezone-date rather than a Hawaii timezone-date when discussing when someone was elevated to U.S. president. The evidence presented by Peter Ormond appears to strongly support this conclusion. I am willing to reconsider if/when anyone presents evidence of a contrary prevailing treatment among Reliable Sources. Feel free to ping me in such case. Alsee (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alsee, I don't think it is as simple as an 'official seat of the monarchy', as the the monarchy in question is the monarchy of Australia (and equivalents) rather than monarchy of the UK. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. The Monarch of these countries passed away on the morning of 9 September 2022, according to the clocks in those countries, according to the dates of all news sources within those countries. The only reference to the 8th that I've seen is the GG's statement in New Zealand, however that was specifically referring to "At Balmoral on 8 September", rightfully using the time zone of the location it was talking about. Not stating the date the transfer of power occurred in New Zealand. If speaking of Elizabeth dying, we should say 8 September, if speaking of the Monarch of these five Oceanic states dying, we should say 9 September, because these are the most relevant dates for those two subjects. El Dubs (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It Depends, removing my previous vote based on a recent Official Information Act request. While I'm surprised by it, New Zealand is clearly acknowledging and recognising Accession Day as 8 September 2022. Therefore it makes the most sense to go with this. See Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet response to an information request. El Dubs (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • B Similar to @Supertrinko:, I agree that the DEATH occurred at Balmoral on 8th of September, but the transfer of power in Oceania occurred on the 9th. So 9th should be listed. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • B per Alsee, who nailed it in regards to the official seat of monarchy, but that isn't Balmoral or London, for the Australian monarchy, but Canberra. StAnselm (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC) Striking !vote in light of recent sources. StAnselm (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be best to give both dates, perhaps as a footnote, to take notice of the time zones, and the fact that NZ is ahead of the rest of the world.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A per government sources in Aus and NZ which use the 8th. We are (a) going against official sources and (b) on this logic we should be amending hundreds of other dates on Wikipedia to reflect local times against official sources which I think is ludicrous. I would also add, there are also six separate Crowns for the Australian states - are we seriously going to argue that the King in Right of Western Australia and South Australia acceded on a different date to the King in Right of New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria. GeebaKhap (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All sources I've seen see something entirely different. For example, "It is my solemn duty to advise you that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has passed away on the 8th of September 2022 at Balmoral in the United Kingdom." Doesn't say anything about who was monarch at a minute past midnight on the 9th, for Australians (etc). And no, there aren't six separate such crowns; Australia is a Commonwealth realm, New South Wales isn't. Just as Scotland and England aren't, either (though in these cases were separate crowns historically). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources do not actually say when Charles became King of Australia/New Zealand. Say if a US President dies in New Zealand in the morning of 1 January, then the Vice President in Washington DC will succeed on 31 December. But it will still be correct to say the President died on 1 January.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • B provided it specifies the time zone referenced with a footnote explaining why it's not 8 September. Without those two additional elements, we'll have readers/editors constantly raising it as an inconsistency. The "accession" is an event occurring in each realm in question. Basic WP:BLUE WP principle is to apply the time/date applicable in the location where the event occurred. The cause of that event (the death of the Queen) should nevertheless by 8 september, on the same principle. But again a footnote should always explain this and the fact that, notwithstanding the dating, there is no gap between the death and the accession. DeCausa (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • B plus footnote, per DeCausa: there was no point on September 8 in Australia when Charles was king (of Australia or anywhere else). —JBL (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It should be noted that we don't actually know the time of the Queen's death and thus the King's accession. According to our own timeline, she died no later than 16:30 BST (at which time it was still 8 September in Western Australia), and may have died as early as 12:30 BST (when it was still 8 September in all five countries, except for the Chatham Islands and Tokelau). Until or unless an exact time of death is confirmed, we won't know which parts of Oceania witnessed the transition on which date. —Reschultzed|||Talk|||Contributions 01:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A I reinterate aforementioned arguments, the fact that the Australian and New Zealand governments have the date at 8 September basically ends the argument as we would be going against official sources. Also, the official seat of the Monarchy of Australia, New Zealand et. al. for legal purposes is in London. Government House in Wellington for example, is the residence of the New Zealand Governor-General, not the Monarch. I don't think it matters where the actual land which the monarch presides over is located. Just to show that juristiction location is a problematic standard, Heard Island and McDonald Islands as an Australian external territory located at GMT +5, so it definently had King Charles as its monarch at some point on September 8. If the seat of the Monarch was in Canberra, no one would be arguing that a footnote or an account be made for Heard and McDonald Islands. The same logic must apply then if the seat of the Monarch of Australia et al. is located in London, which no one has shown to be otherwise.
In any case, the Australian and New Zealand governments have confirmed the date, without any contrary guidance. I don't know why or how there can now be a discussion unless they state otherwise. Succession is immediate so if they state a date of death, that is the date of the accession. The whole debate about the "at Balmoral"... it doesn't even exist in the Australian media release; and in the New Zealand media release is not explicit that it is any condition on the date. Maranello10 (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. Per the arguments by Peter Ormond, Alsee & Maranello10; but primarily per the sources referenced above. Additional strong support for consistency across the articles, per GoodDay. - Ryk72 talk 11:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion 2

There are a few issues here - one of them is where is the "Monarchy of New Zealand" located: is it in London (where Charles resides) or in Wellington? I would say the latter, and that leads me to prefer NZST. StAnselm (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you clarify which option, in the survey section. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting to hear arguments in favour of A. StAnselm (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you're supporting or at least leaning towards B. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely. StAnselm (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the "Monarchy of New Zealand" located? Inclined to the view that on Sept 8th & 9th, the Monarchy of New Zealand, & of Australia, was, verifiably, in Balmoral, Scotland. - Ryk72 talk 11:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's hard to search for it now, because all the Google results are about the proclamation. StAnselm (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just like to note - the Australian government website says "On Friday 9 September 2022, the Prime Minister issued a public statement ... to extend condolences to His Majesty The King, Charles the Third, King of Australia". So that makes it pretty clear that by then (in the eyes of the Aus gov) he was ALREADY King of Australia.Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alsee, not sure if this will change your mind? But to me this is less OR because rather than going off 'when was the death' this clearly is 'when was he king'. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tomorrow and tomorrow that source says the Prime Minister issued a statement on the 9th. That local event is obviously going to be stated in local time, but more significantly he could have just as well have made the statement on the 11th. I don't think that source helps here, other than to counter any claim to a later date. Another page on the same website says Her Majesty The Queen passed away on 8 September 2022. If I understand correctly, the Aussie government officially acknowledged her death using non-Aussie timezoning. There is still arguably a small step of OR in presuming that the death of the Queen implies immediate succession, but that source is much more on-point and your source puts an exceptionally narrow window on any possible distinction between death and succession. Alsee (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I see your point regarding not saying if he was king on the 8th. I'm still backing B but thanks for engaging. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 06:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been two information requests sent to Australia and New Zealand regarding the date.[2][3]--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Rohsopht: I see there's a response to the Australian request, but it's not helping us. StAnselm (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also asked the Government House of NZ. I am told that the Cabinet Office is currently considering the question.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, would you please place your "A" in the survey section? GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You, @Otr500, appear to be "!"voting A, on the basis that the Monarchy of the United Kingdom changed hands on Sept 8, their time. But this about the Monarchy of New Zealand, etc. It appears to have been Sept 9 in New Zealand when that happened (though the sources are a little coy about it, and there seems to have been no actual or official confirmation of the exact time of death). "It's Saturday, 00:01am. Do you know who your monarch is?" 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've chosen neither "A" or "B". GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edited for clarity (clear as I thought it was already). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, would you please place your "A" position in the survey section. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Rohsopht: There is a response to your NZ request. NZ officially acknowledges "Accession Day as the day he became King in the United Kingdom, 8 September." El Dubs (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When they reply, the exact time of the Queen's death was unknown. But since the time is now known I will not rely on their answer. Mike Rohsopht (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If their answer made any reference to time of death, this would make sense. But it didn't. It simply stated that Accession Day is the day he became King in the United Kingdom. This means the time of death makes no difference. Accession Day in NZ is officially 8 September. El Dubs (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Time and time again, people just start votes before any discussion or comments have been received, and then think the result of a vote is what forms a consensus. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, the vote should be the last resort if through the proper discourse of discussion we cannot reach a clear consensus. By starting a vote before discussion, people pick their choice before being able to weigh up that choice against arguments already made. This is clear in the misunderstandings of what this vote is asking for above. We should first discuss reasons why for each, including sharing and interpreting of sources, and finally at the end of that come to a vote only if necessary. Remember, it's a Request for Comment, not a Request for Votes. El Dubs (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Best to settle this matter earlier, rather then later. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is WP:NORUSH, we don't have to jump to a vote and settle it earlier, see what people think through discussion and then call that a consensus, only voting if necessary. By holding a discussion first, you ensure that all if it comes to a vote, that votes that are placed are made with discussion taken into account. Discussion is the cornerstone of consensus on Wikipedia. El Dubs (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: Would you please state your position, in the 'survey section'? GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments: GoodDay, thanks for the ping. 1)- Some of us do not have the luxury of Wikipedia-by-our-side-all-the-time. 2)- I am one of those that would like substantial arguments counter to mine (WP:NORUSH), from an encyclopedia point of view, more than editor bias (not a bad thing) towards one aspect, 3)- I do not give much credibility to "though the sources are a little coy about it", that makes me give more consideration to the place and time of the death of the Queen as the moment her heir became king, 4)- I did, however, miss "the rule" that a !vote can only receive consideration "if" it is properly and officially placed under the "Survey section". I did read in the Monarchy of Australia: Regardless of any proclamations, the late sovereign's heir immediately and automatically succeeds, without any need for confirmation or further ceremony. This leads back to when and where the sovereign met with demise. I will, after some more study, add to the appropriate section. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While important to note when and where the sovereign passed away, I think it's also important to note where the transfer of power takes place. And for the Monarchy of Australia, even if the Sovereign is elsewhere, I see no reason to not believe that the transfer of Australian power occurs in Australia, especially when confirmed by proclamation within Australia. El Dubs (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not exactly the same thing. But, the Union of South Africa approved Edward VIII's abdication on 10 December 1936 & Irish Free State didn't approve his abdication until 12 December 1936, even though the UK & the rest of the empire approved it on 11 December 1936. Makes one wonder, would we have used the 11th, with footnotes for SA (10 Dec) & the IFS (12 Dec).? GoodDay (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: I have the same instinct as you, as to where is the "Monarchy of New Zealand" located, as being important. I thought initially it was probably New Zealand, and if it was going to be anywhere in New Zealand it had to be Government House in Wellington. The Government House website states that it is the residence of the Governor General, not the Monarch. It seems the seat of the Monarch is decoupled from the jurisdiction that it precides and is located at Buckingham Palace, otherwise it would have to be stated. This point is reflected in my survey response for now, but I also added it here to continue discussion. Maranello10 (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So strange, all the non-UK realms don't include their monarch as a co-resident with their governor-general, except for one (see Rideau Hall & Citadelle of Quebec), Canada. GoodDay (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a relic of Canada being geographically close in a relative sense to the UK compared to the other realms, that the monarch could realistically visit (and probably subsequently did) before viable air travel. For example, Queen Elizabeth was the first sitting monarch to visit Australia; there would be little point making the monarch a "co-resident" of Government House during the time of the Statute of Westminster 1931 laying the groundwork for the current relationships with the realms, or anything prior to that period. Maranello10 (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: The conversation has stalled for two weeks, and we have received an answer from the New Zealand DPMC information request. You started the RFC and remained neutral, so do you wish to close the discussion? Otherwise, I am happy to put in a formal closure request. Maranello10 (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maranello10:, you may put in a formal closure request. GoodDay (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm: I am going to request a formal closure shortly, do you wish to change your option in the survey section before I do? Maranello10 (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. StAnselm (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC: Titles & Styles

Shutting, down as a similiar RFC opened up at Prince William's page. A more appropriate place. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've noticed in a few "Titles & Styles" sections of bios, that there's at times inconsistencies on the dates. Most recently disputes have occurred at William, Prince of Wales & Prince George of Wales, for example. So, how do we handle this? I think Prince William's bio would be a good focal point, given the multiple changes he's went through on September 8 & 9, 2022.

Do we use end dates for titles, when a 'higher' title has been proclaimed? or do we continue to show the lower titles as continuing to be used?

Note: The Scottish titles/styles are not being disputed, in term of their dates. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I can offer a comment, part of the confusion seems to stem from the fact that these sections cover both titles and styles, so it is unclear if the bulleted list in many of them is supposed to show the titles or styles of the person in question. In the case of British royals titles generally last until death or the person in question becomes monarch and so don't have an end date until that occurs, but styles can change as higher titles 'supersede' lower ones and therefore have an end date.
I am involved in the editing of some of the articles in question so won't comment further, but if this request could also consider whether these sections should be separated or otherwise clarified I would appreciate that. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to said sections being separated or clarified. Your help in clarifying the matter, is most welcomed. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Example:

  • A - Duke of Cambridge, 2011 to 2022
    Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge, 2022
    Prince of Wales, 2022 to present
    or
  • B - Duke of Cambridge, 2011 to present
    Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge, 2022 to present
    Prince of Wales, 2022 to present
    or
  • C - Duke of Cambridge, 2011 to present
    Duke of Cornwall, 2022 to present
    Prince of Wales, 2022 to present

Survey3

Discussion3

Comment:(Summoned by bot) As far as the content goes, I think the point A.D. Hope raises above is the most germane bit of feedback: these sections might in general benefit from a streamlined explanation of precisely the distinction A.D. raises.

However, on a more procedural ground, I want to remind everyone here that RfCs hosted at WikiProjects are very problematic: per WP:Advice pages, and multiple additional policies and ArbCom rulings, decisions generated at WikiProjects are not considered guiding consensus: you will still have to get WP:LOCALCONSENSUS every time there is a dispute about this crops up in the future, and you won't be able to point back to this discussion as project-wide consensus, as that is not permitted. In order to get consensus that can be cited on multiple articles in case of future disputes, this discussion should be taking place on the relevant MoS page. Or if, no relevant section exists, have a discussion on the talk page for a broader MoS subpage where this guidance might fit. Or last resort, make a WP:PROPOSAL to create and appropriate guideline.

In any event, definitely do not edit war over any decision reached in this discussion here, or treat any consensus here as more than advisory, because WikiProjects are not meant to be creating generalized rules and then trying to apply them to all articles perceived to be in their purview. This doesn't work for a lot of reasons, chief among them that different WikiProjects would come up for different rules for article that might be covered by the topics of both, and then there would be argument as to which rules took priority. Which is why we host discussions about content and style guidance in centralized documents like WP:PAG and WP:MoS. That's why it's better to start discussions like this on talk pages for those pages, not on WikiProjects. I'm not suggesting shutting down this discussion if there are unlikely to be disputes about this once a decision is reached, but its still probably better to move this to an MoS talk page. SnowRise let's rap 02:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping from one bio talkpage to another bio talkpage, in hopes of bringing consistency, is too long a process. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comprehensive advice, I've begun a new RfC at William, Prince of Wales as a result.
I'm not that familiar with how this project organises itself, do I need to manually publicise the RfC somewhere here, or is it added to the project page list automatically? Thank you :) A.D.Hope (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is going on with this page?

Why are the houses of York and Lancaster listed as Italian and Hungarian houses? EmilySarah99 (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Reign of Elizabeth II

Please note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reign of Elizabeth II. DeCausa (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Muti FAC

The article on the Abbasid caliph al-Muti has been submitted for Featured Article. All interested editors are invited to participate. Constantine ✍ 18:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers named X

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before;

Should there be more pages of lists of rulers from different countries with the same name even if they don't all have the same title (ie. King, Duke etc)?

We already have a few: Henry, Leopold, Robert, Rhun.

Should there be more, maybe for more common names like; Louis, George, William? WiltedXXVI (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which emperor? Can it be both?

We're trying to identify a statue at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Constantine_or_Federico_II_Hohenstaufen?, if you have knowledge. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani#Requested move 25 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani#Requested move 25 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That probably was cryptic... why do we care about that? This RM involves about 50 state funeral articles, including at least one that is related to this WP. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC Submission: Succession to the Italian throne

Thought I'd request a review of Draft:Succession to the Italian throne. The article is a translation of the Italian WP equivalent. - JTF2020 (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is way, way too detailed, sourced to too many primary sources (like law decrees, announcements from the former royal house, and interviews), is basically a coatrack for utterly UNDUE post-1946 familial succession disputes, and the community is not likely to accept a page on a topic that largely recreates a deleted page. JoelleJay (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such throne (since 1946), to begin with. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Octavius of Great Britain FA Review

Hello, all! I submitted Prince Octavius of Great Britain for a FA review a few weeks ago, but unfortunately, it has not seen a lot of engagement from users. If y'all could take a look at the nomination and give your thoughts and support, I would appreciate it! Don't worry, its not a long read (the poor prince died at the age of 4). Cheers! Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Moulay Hassan, Crown Prince of Morocco, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

Draft article on Edward Howard, 8th Earl of Effingham

Hello. Could someone re-review Draft:Edward Howard, 8th Earl of Effingham, please? -- Editor FIN (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Succession to the British throne

A discussion has opened about updating the succession. Input would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Intros of Elizabeth II's & Charles III's coronation pages

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is clear consensus for option A. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Concerning the pages: Which of the following options, should we have in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Options:

  1. "...United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" (see intro to Charles III's coronation)
  2. "...United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc..." (note the oath mentions all the realms in order of their age, beginning with the UK. Therefore, all realms would be shown & linked)
  3. Don't mention the realms at all (see intro to Elizabeth II's coronation)

Survey4

  • A - is my first choice, as the 1953 coronation occurred in the United Kingdom & the 2023 coronation is scheduled to occur in the United Kingdom. I would accept B as a secondary choice, as the realms are (and I assume will be) mentioned in the coronation oaths. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • C: Don't mention any realm in the first sentence, and list them later in the first paragraph like it is done at the Queen's article. At the time of her coronation in 1953, the Queen was the first monarch to be crowned with separate titles in each of her then-seven realms. Coronation Contingents and fleet review ships were sent from every realm, and guard was held at Buckingham Palace by troops of every realm. And each realm's Coronation Standard was marched in the procession. Every realm was represented at the ceremony. Removing all the realms and substituting it with "UK and other Commonwealth realms" is WP:UNDUE. As far as consistency is concerned, the King also has a separate title in each of his 15 realms, like his mother. When sources appear next year stating the King's was crowned monarch of such-and-such realms, then we can add them in the intro, like it is done at his mother's article. Peter Ormond 💬 21:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A would be best. Suggest rather than mentioning the list of realms, phrasing similar to that in Charles III's lead paragraph "The United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms" with a link, would be better than somewhat tediously listing them in prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify please @Wehwalt:, you're choosing C, but describing A, as the preference. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to A.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion4

Note: After being twice reverted at the Coronation of Elizabeth II's page, in my attempts to bring about consistency with the intro of the Coronation of Charles III and Camilla page (thus requiring this RFC), I've chosen to respect WP:BRD on the former. This way the differences between the page intros, will highlight the topic here. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HTGS: The entire list, if B is chosen & in order of the realm's age, per the coronation oath. If A is chosen? Commonwealth realms would be linked. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod:, you forgot to sign your 'survey' post. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thks - done Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B would be best since she was Queen of all realms independently, but A would be a reasonable second choice. C is woefully inadequate as to suggest she was more largely Queen of the UK, or that the others are somehow contingent on this. Likewise each of her realms should again be listed in her infobox but that’s another discussion. Timothy N-F (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • I think factually of her oath and office 70+ years ago was not the same as what his will be in 2023, which is still a bit in speculation. Do not try to force some OR factually incorrect wording just to have it identical -- the situations are simply not identical. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peer review: Hungarian nobility

I've listed the article Hungarian nobility for peer review before its nomination as a FAC. The article is not short but it covers the 1000-year-long history of this class that made up almost 5% of the population of today's Hungary, Croatia, Slovakia and parts of Romania, Ukraine and Serbia from the 17th century. All comments are highly appreciated here. Thank you for your time. Borsoka (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles under the purview of this WikiProject

Just making sure. All the articles of nobles from countries other than the UK such as Guglielmo Marconi, Salvador Dalí, Sebastião José de Carvalho e Melo, 1st Marquis of Pombal, and Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias are supposed to be under the purview of this WikiProject work group, correct? StellarHalo (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will be taking the lack of replies from the followers of this page as a Yes. On second thought, I should not have asked this in the first place. StellarHalo (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exact dates

Should exact dates be supported for titles and styles sections? In many articles I've found this is not the case, such as Anne, Queen of Great Britain, where her title as "The Princess Anne of Denmark" is not supported by exact dates. Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester has no citations for her titles.

I ask because a certain editor keeps reverting my edits on Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood. I reasoned that exact dates need not used for her titles by marriage because it's incredibly she would have started using the Viscountess Lascelles or Countess of Harewood titles at a different time than her husband. The only example I know of a Princess not taking her titles husband is Princess Margaret, never being known as "Mrs Antony Armstrong-Jones", which is why this is cited separately, it is an exceptional case. Because we know Princess Mary used these titles (from my sources) is it not safe to assume that she used them when her husband did. It's not like she would have suddenly started using the Countess of Harewood title several years or even days after her husband became Earl. So, 9/10 it's safe to assume a Royal woman would use titles taking from her husband beginning at the same time he used them, is it not? Estar8806 (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find a reliable source that actually supports something, I don't think you should be using WP:SYNTH or WP:OR to fill in the gaps. JBL (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Infobox Doge" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Infobox Doge to the template Template:Infobox officeholder and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 15 § Template:Infobox Doge until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 16:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion of interest

It has been proposed to merge the article Eskam's daughter to Eskam. Please discuss here.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William III needs assistance

William III of Sicily is lacking citations and needs editors assistance. Thinker78 (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bourbon-Parma Princes on Template:Dutch princes

There's a dispute regarding the inclusion of the descendants of Princess Irene of the Netherlands on Template:Dutch princes, Template:Dutch princesses, and Template:Dutch princesses by marriage.

So the issue regarding the Bourbon-Parma is that their official titles are not "Prince(ss) of the Netherlands" or "Prince(ss) of Orange-Nassau". Their titles as listed here https://www.hogeraadvanadel.nl/adel/nederlandse-adellijke-families/noord-nederlandse-adellijke-families are in the Dutch nobility, which is different from the listed royal titles mentioned and are more similar to titles such as Prince de Chimay and Prince of Waterloo. While they are undoubtedly part of the extended Dutch Royal family, so are people like Countess Eloise of Orange-Nassau and Bernardo Guillermo, who are not listed in these templates as they don't hold the titles "Prince(ss) of the Netherlands" or "Prince(ss) of Orange-Nassau". The situation with the children of Princess Irene is similar. It's worth noting that them being added here is a recent addition. 2601:249:9301:D570:AD0B:B188:D02D:CB9C (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom has an RFC

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Colonestarrice (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Regnal numbers for successors and predecessors in infoboxes for monarchs of more than one country

For example: William III of England was William II of Scotland too. What should he be displayed as in infoboxes with him as predecessor, successor, co-monarch or monarch?

This affects other monarchs, like Philip II of Spain, (I of Portugal) etc. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • B - Though my main concern is that we have consistency on this matter. So, I'll be content with which ever 'option' ends up being chosen. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A Per my arguments here. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A per @Tim O'Doherty rationale. Infobox are no place to go over the details of the reganl numeration etc.Marcelus (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A - Unfortunately the broadness of this RfC - applying invented numbering systems to Philip II (who is not called Philip II & I in any reliable source) - means that option B would result in unsourced original research, which is not acceptable on wikipedia. DrKay (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • D - As someone whose primary focus on Wikipedia is royalty, I prefer option D as I believe that is the most beneficial option. Options B and C, while both technically correct, are difficult if not impossible to find reliable sources for. Option A could work in some cases in which there is only one monarch with that one regnal number (like Edward VIII, the only such Edward VIII of any place), but in this case, William III is a common name shared by many individuals. This raises an issue that has constantly been debated on this website: should we use of country after a monarch's name and ordinal? Wikipedia:SOVEREIGN certainly thinks so. However, editors have constantly found exceptions to the point that it doesn't even look like we have a uniform naming convention anymore. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A - (Summoned by bot) applying invented numbering systems … … means that option B would result in unsourced original research AFAIK, the only UK monarch who is regularly referred to by 'joint' numbers is James VI and I, for obvious reasons. Where the other title is relevant for some reason, it can be referred to in text. This isn't substantially different from the other 'subsidiary' titles or roles that a monarch (or other head of state) may hold. Where, for some reason (such as acquiring the second kingdom) a monarch is regularly referred to by more than one title (such as James VI & I) an exception can be made, but including (fairly nominal) 'Scottish numbers' would confuse more than inform, since they are very rarely used or referred to. Pincrete (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly A. I think the search for consistency here is futile and unhelpful. There is no consistency and consistency should not be applied for its own sake. Where dual ordinals are common, such as James VI and I, they can be used (option B). Where dual ordinals are rare or never used, such as Philip II and I, they should be avoided. Where there is ambiguity, such as Philip II of Spain and Philip II of Portugal, then the country identifier might be needed (option D). I wouldn't select option C for an infobox. We can use ampersands in infoboxes to save on space and avoid wrapping where possible. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A or D sometimes, except for very specific contexts relating to the other title. Above all we should not be inventing naming styles, which some WP editors are very prone to do. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly A per @Celia Homeford solely based on existing precedence involving regnal numbering. But I would also support a review of those practices.--Estar8806 (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I should point out, Elizabeth II was not Elizabeth I of Scotland, as Scotland isn't a sovereign state. But - William III of England 'was' William II of Scotland & Philip II of Spain was Philip I of Portugal, as Scotland (then) & Portugal were sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Scotland is no longer a sovereign state (and has not been since 1707) she was still commonly called Elizabeth I of Scotland. Whatever she was, she was not Elizabeth II of Scotland; postboxes with "EIIR" on them were blown up in Scotland: she was recognised as Elizabeth I, even the first minister called her as such. When I visited Edinburgh a few months ago, I went to the Museum on the Mound, where there were labels with "Edward I & VII", Edward II & VIII", and "Elizabeth I & II on them. People in Scotland do still use the Scottish numbering system even though Scotland is part of the UK. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of those objections in Scotland, but it didn't change the fact that she was Elizabeth II of the entire United Kingdom. I'm sure there'll be objections to the name of the future British monarch (if he chooses that name) William V. I'm not aware of any objections in Scotland, over the names of past British monarchs William IV & Edward VII. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she was Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, but that United Kingdom incorporates the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, of which Elizabeth was I of one and II of the other. It had been the Kingdom of Great Britain, then the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, before being the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but it still incorporates the two former kingdoms + NI. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She still reigned as Elizabeth II over Scotland, no matter any objections. But, that's not exactly what this RFC is about, as nobody is suggesting we use "Elizabeth II & I". GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That matter was settled nearly seventy years ago, see Hansard "Royal Style and Title", 15 April 1953. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What if the monarch was ruling over more than two kingdoms? Marcelus (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would have to add an extra ordinal, which is why I oppose it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some monarchs used/use a different regnal number in those situations, while others don't. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, was also Elizabeth II of Canada (for example). However, Charles XV of Sweden was Charles IV of Norway. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but Eric of Pomerania is known as Eric III in Norway, Eric VII in Denmark and Eric XIII in Sweden. Marcelus (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Best we get some consistency, then. I would recommend that if option A is chosen? the primary country should be added to the name, to avoid confusion. Thus "William III of England", rather then "William III", or "Charles XV of Sweden", rather then "Charles XV". GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be less consistent. I would rather have "William III and II" than "William III of England". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which would (for example) 'remove' Spain, in the Spanish/Portuguese examples. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that. Philip II, for example, is overwhelmingly known as being the king of Spain. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just the same, we should have an option 'D' - example "William III of England". GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't, if they are monarch of multiple places, have the corresponding ordinal for the kingdom or duchy or whatever that they were monarch or duke of? For example, in Christopher of Bavaria's infobox, in the portion for King of Denmark, Eric of Pomerania is "Eric VII", but in "King of Sweden" he is "Eric XIII". This seems like a sensible compromise to me. It's even applicable for the British Isles; a list of English monarchs would have "William III", but a list of Scottish monarchs would have William II (this is already the case). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean divide up the infobox content? Have (for example) a separate "King of England and Ireland" & "King of Scotland" setup. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, but if something like that is already there, then that should happen. William III was King of England, Scotland, and Ireland as William III, II, and I, but since it's his article, no need to split. With his predecessors and successors or co-monarchs and people he was monarch of, it should just be William III per my above arguments. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're meaning William's infobox? The discussion (in William's case) is should his predecessor be shown as "James II", "James II & VII", "James II of England" etc. Should co-monarch be "Mary II" or "Mary II of England". GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that no monarch's infobox should be split between kingdoms just for the sake of this discussion (only to number them differently if they already are split), which is why in William's successors/predecessors' infoboxes there shouldn't be differing sections for "William I", "William II", and "William III". I just also wanted to clarify that I wouldn't split his kingdoms in his infobox either. Sorry if the wording wasn't clear. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Mary II", I think. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Anne Boleyn

Anne Boleyn has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Femke (alt) (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Titling of Princesses

Hello WikiProject:Royalty! I am here to notify you of an ongoing RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#RFC: Article titles for Various Princesses. Hope to hear your input! Estar8806 (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this?

Hello. Would anyone be able to assist me in recognising who this lady who attended Constantine II's funeral? She is seen at 5:02:56, kissing Crown Prince Pavlos. She arrived with Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg. Thank you. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Therealscorp1an: Doesn't look like his wife. Possibly one of his sisters. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: Yes, I didn't think it was his wife. Any idea which sister? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She looks like Princess Margaretha of Liechtenstein, Henri's younger sister. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right. She's already listed in the article luckily. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, she was representing her brother-in-law. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Famous biologist and Bavarian princess?

See the current discussion at Talk:Alice Auersperg. She is one of the world's foremost experts (if not *the* foremost expert) in the habits and behaviors of the Tanimbar corella (one of my favourite parrots) and she and her research have appeared in the media numerous times over the past ten years. She also seems to be a Princess of Bavaria - the second daughter of Prince Luitpold of Bavaria (b. 1951). Something which is less well-known and that I only discovered yesterday when I was looking for places to link her (new) article. I couldn't find anything more reliable on the web than blogs and forum posts mentioning this, however. Just coming here to ask if you folks have access to any books that would be reliable enough sources so this info can be added to her article. Thanks. Iloveparrots (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no princesses of Bavaria born in 1981, for obvious reasons. There are, unfortunately, a bunch of very poor articles on Wikipedia about the descendants of deposed monarchs, apparently written and maintained by fantasists about the continued existence of entities like the Kingdom of Bavaria; Prince Luitpold of Bavaria (b. 1951) is a typical example. I hope that you will not push an article about a scientist who is (I presume) notable in that role on the basis of her accomplishments into the fantasy pile. --JBL (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that David Eppstein already told you this on the talk-page; his comments there are entirely correct. --JBL (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I absolutely agree with him (and you) that it shouldn't be the main thrust of the article, for sure. So, you don't think it's notable enough to mention at all in the article, to be clear? Iloveparrots (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your opening comment here still said that she is a princess. This is false. We must not say that. I think that even mentioning her claim to be an heiress of a defunct title is problematic per WP:BLP, because stating it properly and neutrally requires us to also state that she is incorrect in making such a claim. We should only do so if (1) we have clear sourcing that she herself makes this claim and not merely that others make it for her, and (2) this claim is described in mainstream sources that clearly present the mainstream view that this is a fictional title, per WP:FRINGE. Otherwise, at best we can say that her father is Liutpold. Even that is problematic because our article on her father uses his fictional title and provides no non-fictional way of referring to him. Do not take her father's article as an example; it is a bad article, for all the same reasons. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I wrote that I was kinda unfamiliar with the situation with royalty in Germany, to be honest with you, with regards to the title being officially defunct (as opposed to "it still exists as a paper title"). I'd just looked at the Liutpold article and made assumptions from that. Yes, as far as I'm aware Auersperg has never mentioned it herself, or at least not anywhere that I could find. Yes, now I think we should leave it, for the reasons you've stated. Should the Luitpold article, and those of his brothers be renamed? Iloveparrots (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, Luitpold does not have a brother. Second, the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Hypothetical, dissolved and defunct titles is pretty clear on what the title of his article should be especially when that section was added after there had been lengthy discussions on the topic. In any case, if anyone wants it or the articles on his relatives renamed, be sure to open a requested move discussion. StellarHalo (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A slight dispute over a page being moved, related to Charles III

Would appreciate input concerning a recent page move, folks. GoodDay (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Death and funeral of Michael I of Romania

I'm just calling editors of this WikiProject to contribute to the requested move at Death and funeral of Michael I of Romania. Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine II's relation to Albert II

In this article, it states that Albert II of Monaco is a sixth cousin once removed of Constantine II of Greece. I have been looking around for their most recent common ancestor, but I am struggling to find one. If someone could please inform me who it is and how they relate, please do! Thank you. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Therealscorp1an:, their common ancestors were John William Friso and his wife, Marie Louise of Hesse-Kassel, great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents of Constantine II of Greece & great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents of Albert II of Monaco. See Royal descendants of John William Friso, for further info. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I was aware of that, I just wanted to know if there was a closer ancestor, but it seems there's not. Thanks for responding. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rainier III & Constantine II 'were' sixth cousins. There's some re-marriages within the family tree. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's the brother-in-law of the king's cousin, a fellow head of state and they sat on the Olympic Committee together. Some unsourced and trivial relationship is irrelevant. DrKay (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Royalty_and_Nobility&oldid=1142983488"