Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 14

• /older archives
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3
• /Archive 4

---

Existing Royal Consorts

Existing Royal Consorts may be referred to by their consort name, eg. Sofia of Spain. But when her husband dies, she will revert to her pre-marital title, ie, [Sofia of Greece] with the new Queen of Spain being referred to by the consort designation. The same rule applies to male royal consorts.

I think the current policy on existing royal consorts creates confusing titles. "Sofia of Spain" suggests she is/was a reigning monarch. It would be less confusing if titles were added e.g. "Queen Sofia" or "Queen Sofia of Spain". --Jiang 18:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

changed the wording to "Existing Royal Consorts are referred to by their consort name, eg. Queen Sofia of Spain. But when her husband dies, she will revert to her pre-marital title, ie, [Sofia of Greece] with the new Queen of Spain being referred to by the consort designation." without objection. I would further like to change the wording to exclude the notion that consorts revert to their pre-marital titles upon their husband/wife's death. They are given a new title e.g. "Queen Mother" and should use that. Reverting to pre-marital titles should only be done upon death.

British titles for non British subjects

Suffixes for non-British/Commonwealth subjects/citizens receiving British awards should not be used. The sentences 'This Bob Geldof is not "Sir Bob Geldof" in the title and is "Bob Geldof KBE (hon.)" in the text. Likewise, Colin Powell is not "Sir Colin Powell" but "Colin Powell GCB (hon.)". See the talk page re explanation of change.' should be changed. The KBE reference can stand for Geldof as an Irishman, but few Americans know or care about what GCB is supposed to stand for and only British publications will ever add such suffixes to Powell's name (it currently does not exist in the wikipedia article). A mention somewhere in the article about receiving the award is appropriate, but adding it as part of a person's name is anglo-centric. --Jiang 19:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

replaced reference to Colin Powell with "Post-nominals should not be used for non-Commonwealth or former British Empire citizens as their use outside a Commonwealth context are extremely rare." without objection. No one uses these post nominals in the US. It's only used by British/Commonwealth people in their own contexts. --Jiang 08:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Better example of courtesy titles?

Courtesy titles (also referred to as an honorific prefix)² such as Lord or Lady differ from full titles because unlike full titles they are included as part of the personal name, often from birth. As such, they should be included in the article title if a person if universally recognised with it and their name is unrecognisable without it. For example, the nineteenth century British prime minister Lord John Russell was always known by that form of name, never simply John Russell. Using the latter form would produce a name that would be unrecognisable to anyone searching for a page on Russell.

I'm not a fan of citing as examples cases that are more convoluted than they need to be. The page on Russell is John Russell, 1st Earl Russell, as he was known after 1861, including during his second premiership. Can someone come up with a better example? Lord Randolph Churchill sprank to mind but regardless of his being known to history by that title there is also the need to disambiguate from his grandson Randolph Churchill. Timrollpickering 15:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lord Frederick Cavendish? Proteus (Talk) 19:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Have updated it. Timrollpickering 00:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Modify peerage bit

Really just a slight tidy up to add two further exceptions clauses which cover current practice. Can I suggest we change the first paragraph as follows with addition in bold:

1. Members of the hereditary Peerage' (people who inherit their title), such as a marquess, viscount, count, duke. earl, etc., as with royals have two names. For example Henry John Temple was also the 3rd Viscount Palmerston, hence typically referred to as "Lord Palmerston". Rule here is, "So-and-so, ordinal (if appropriate) title of place", and place redirects as you see fit. The sequence number is included since personal names are often duplicated (see Earl of Aberdeen.) Examples: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, or Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, with redirect Lord Palmerston, which allows both of his names to be included. EXCEPTIONS: When individuals received hereditary peerages after retiring from the post of Prime Minister (unless they are better known for their later career under an additional/alternative title), or for any other reason are known exclusively by their personal names, do not include the peerage dignity. Examples: Anthony Eden (not "Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon"), Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell") (but Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth not Henry Addington). When individuals held more than one peerage and are best known by a title other than their highest one, use the interim one. Examples: Frederick John Robinson, 1st Viscount Goderich (not "Frederick John Robinson, 1st Earl of Ripon"), William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne (not "William Petty, 1st Marquess of Lansdowne"). When individuals inherited or were created peers but are best known to history by a courtesy title use that. Examples Frederick North, Lord North (not Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guilford), Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh (not Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry).

Both are in practice for good reason (and after long debate ages ago) because of how Addington/Sidmouth, North and Castlereagh are known to history but don't seem to be covered here. Timrollpickering 00:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Descriptions of policy here should follow practice, and this is how (rightly, I think) we've decided to do it. john k 03:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Extensive changes

Reading through this page, I noticed that it's not really up to date with our current practice, so I've changed several aspects of it:

• I've removed the "all titles" section at the beginning, as it gave a rule that only applies to titles in American English, and the vast majority of articles on people with titles don't use that. International English practice is to write "Lord Shrewsbury met the Duke", not "Lord Shrewsbury met the duke", and "the Secretary of State met the Prime Minister", not "the secretary of state met the prime minister", and the first way of each of those examples is the format used in the vast majority of articles, so it makes little sense to have this page contradict that usage.
• I've implemented the changes to the peerage section suggested above, as they make sense and no one seems to have any objections to them.
• I've added a bit about multiple peerages and single peerages with multiple parts, which merely explains current practice.
• I've deleted the sentence grouping baronets together with knights and added a section on baronets (again, merely reflecting current practice).
• I've edited the section on members of royal familes to reflect articles such as Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and made a couple of small tweaks.
• I've altered the section on formatting the opening of articles on members of royal families, as we changed this style a while ago because it didn't look very nice.

I think that's it, and as I say most of the changes merely reflect current practice and are simply bringing this page up to date, but feel free to complain if you think I've been too bold. Proteus (Talk) 15:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me. Deb 16:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Peeresses

Okay, the current article titling for peeresses is a complete mess. For some we have Firstname, Title, as Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire. For some we have just the maiden name, e.g. Elizabeth Georgiana Leveson-Gower. For some we have Firstname Marriedname, Title, as Charlotte Montagu-Douglas-Scott, Duchess of Buccleuch. I would imagine we have others at Firstname Maidenname, Title, although I've not seen any. I already suggested at the Charlotte Montagu-Douglas-Scott page that we not use surnames at all for peeresses. Proteus disagrees, thinking that we should use the married name. I thought I would see what others think. There also seems to be a great deal of mess over how to title articles on Queen-Consorts for countries other than Britain. Should Princess Louise of Sweden who marries the King of Denmark be at Louise of Sweden or Louise of Denmark? That could perhaps be resolved as well. john k 19:41, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree it's a mess, but what exactly do you mean by peeresses? Sorry to go over old ground, but it seems obvious that we need different rules for peeresses in their own right from the rules that apply to women who have married peers. Deb 20:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In this case I meant women who marry peers. Suo jure peeresses are even more difficult, I think. Should we have Patricia Mountbatten, 2nd Countess Mountbatten of Burma or Patricia Knatchbull, 2nd Countess Mountbatten of Burma? But even worse, what do we do about suo jure peeresses who hold higher titles by marriage than they do in their own right, which is quite common? john k 21:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

AAAAARGH!!!!! Deb 21:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ouch. Firstly Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire is probably best at that page - she is best known as this, not least because of a very high profile biography with that very name. I think specific exceptions will need to apply in a lot of cases.

I'm not sure. It would at least be consistent to always used married name. I would rather have them all at Firstname Marriedname, Title than some there and some at Firstname, Title. john k 02:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm - it's the "what does most commonly known as mean?" problem again. Certainly in Georgiana's case "Duchess of Devonshire" should be in there even though I think she later remarried (there's a bit of discussion on the talk page). Timrollpickering 10:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As for rules how about these as some starting points:

• The title should always be used unless they are very well known without it (e.g. an authoress who is best known by whatever is on the title page of their books).

Agreed. john k 02:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Leave out "Dowager" completely, even if the woman only became prominent in widowhood.

Agreed. john k 02:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I think it's wrong to create unusual name variants that would not have been used at the same time so let's not use Firstnam Maidenname, title by marriage at all.

Well, we already do this with peers. For instance, Gathorne Hardy, 1st Earl of Cranbrook. By the time he was Earl of Cranbrook, his surname was Gathorne-Hardy. But since he was for a long time known as "Gathorne Hardy," the compromise is made. But I would agree with not doing this with peeresses, at least. john k 02:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dare we have a further rule for people who go and merge their first name and surname into a new surname for peerage titles? All the elements are still there? Timrollpickering 10:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• With suo jure peeresses, when the title has been given to a woman so as to allow both her husband to remain an MP and the family to have a peerage it's likely that the woman is not known by her maiden name so don't use it. So Mrs. Pitt the Elder would not start with "Hester Grenville". (Of course this case has the further problem that later on her husband received a higher title but I can't think of one whose husband died a commoner off the top of my head.)

Disraeli's wife died before he became Earl of Beaconsfield. So she'd be Mary Anne Disraeli, Viscountess Beaconsfield, I guess? john k 02:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As a peeress in her own right the number needs to be there so Mary Anne Disraeli, 1st Viscountess Beaconsfield, as she is at now. Certainly not Mary Anne Evans, 1st Viscountess Beaconsfield (maiden name + title) or Mary Anne Lewis, 1st Viscountess Beaconsfield (1st marriage name + title). There is of course the further problem of women who remarry - obviously a married title is formally lost on remarriage but this doesn't always follow in common use. Sarah, Duchess of York is likely to be always known as that or "Fergie" even if she does remarry. Timrollpickering 10:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also there's cases where a man is due to be granted a title but dies before it can be conferred and so it's conferred on his heir with remainder to be inherited as though he held it and his widow is given the style of a Dowager of the title by which she becomes well known but she was never actually married to someone who held the substantive title...Timrollpickering 10:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not 100% sure about how to tackle the suo jure' vs married higher titles (and Mrs. Pitt is relatively easy since both were Chatham) but my instinct is to give the former precedence over the latter, with a wide scope for individual variations.

Timrollpickering 01:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that married higher titles should get precedence, since they were almost certainly better known by that title than by their own. john k 02:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was okay with this until we got to Mrs Disraeli, but personally I would prefer to see her as just plain "Mary Anne Disraeli". Is the "1st Viscountess" thing correct? Supposing there was a "2nd Viscount whatever" and he died unmarried, but then the "3rd Viscount whatever" got married - would his wife still be 3rd Viscountess, because she takes her title from him? Deb 17:37, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, only suo jure peers and peeresses use numerals (so they aren't used by wives of peers or, in the past, husbands of peeresses who were styled as peers jure uxoris). If Lady Beaconsfield had survived to see her husband ennobled, she would have been "1st Viscountess Beaconsfield" but only "Countess of Beaconsfield". And they don't really make much sense when you've had suo jure peeresses - the son and heir of a 1st Countess is a 2nd Earl, even though there's never been an Earl before him - but they're generally used anyway. The only other way is writing "xth in line" in brackets afterwards, but Margaret of Mar, Countess of Mar (31st in line) is hardly an ideal article title. Proteus (Talk) 18:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I confess I was ignorant of this discussion when I moved Mrs Disraeli to Mary Anne Disraeli, 1st Viscountess Beaconsfield. However, she had been at Mary Anne Evans, and that didn't strike me as a good location. Mackensen (talk) 17:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IMO, persons who became peeresses by marriage, need neither maidenname nor marriedname in the heading. Keep it simple, please. What's the problem if a geading is Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, without anything else. 217.140.193.123 1 July 2005 10:36 (UTC)

styles in articles

There was a long discussion elsewhere some time ago on the use of styles within articles. An agreement was reached but it seems not to have been implemented. I'm proposing it again.

The proposal was simple. Articles on those possessing styles should explain the holder's style, not use it. The reasons were straightforward and logical.

1. Most encyclopaedias don't use them
2. People who don't understand styles (and that is most people on wikipedia) may interpret them as being POV. So writing His Holiness John Paul II is interpretated as stating that JPII is holy, that the Right Honourable Tony Blair means we are saying Blair is right and honourable, etc. Explaining rather than using a holder's style (in the pope's article, for example, by saying "Pope John Paul II is styled His Holiness", avoids any POV impressions and so avoids the sort of edit wars that have started to erupt on some 'styled' pages.
3. In the interest of balance all styles should be used, not just some. So if we have Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II we should have His Excellency President Bush, His Grace the Duke of Norfolk, the Right Reverend Dr. Herbert Fleisher, the Right Honourable the Lord Major of Dublin, His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Dublin etc. That would frankly be absurd and unworkable. But not to do it would be taking a POV stance on whose styles we choose to use and whose we choose not to use.
4. Do anti-popes get to be described using styles? Do exiled monarchs who have not abdicated be described using styles? Do we use historic but rarely used styles? Commonly used styles? Widely known if unused styles? Will writing His Majesty King Constantine II be seen as POV by most Greeks, given that a clear majority is now republican? Can exiled royalty be styled? Do we give Louise, the daughter of the Earl and Countess of Wessex, her style, given that she is technically a HRH but her parents have opted to call her Lady Louise?
5. What if there is no english equivalent to a local style used for a president/monarch or notable?

There are numerous other arguments. It is a complete hornets' nest of problems. Styles have to feature. The task is to use them in the least POV, least controversial, least likely to be misunderstood manner. Incorporating a neutral sentence in the text achieves that. Starting articles by using controversial styles risks too many controversies, too many edit wars, too many mis-understandings. It is too provocative and in the manner in which they have been used, frankly OTT, with articles cluttered with HRHs, HSH, HMs, etc. FearÉIREANN 17:16, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm okay with all this. Care to give your views on "Peeresses" (above)? Deb 17:37, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Will do, Debs.

As you know, I disagree completely, but I'm not going to post a long counter-argument. I will just say two things: firstly, people thinking something is POV doesn't make it POV, and I don't think we should be pandering to stupidity and misconception; and secondly, putting "So-and-so is styled Such-and-such" in every single article on Privy Counsellors, bishops, peers, royals, etc. is cumbersome and much less professional-looking than just starting with the style. Proteus (Talk) 18:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I understand, but Proteus, unfortunately some people do make stupid presumptions. And as a free edit encyclopaedida, simply saying 'don't be stupid. That's ridiculous' won't work if a handful of people wage edit wars on pages they (stupidly) think is POV. I'm the one who started the Style (manner of address) definition in and added styles into pages. So I'm all for styles. I simply want them done in a way that narrows the danger of 'POV' edit wars. To paraphrase about Caesar's wife, we mustn't just be NPOV but be seen to be NPOV and make allowances for those (and there are a heck of a lot) who don't understand styles and read into them a POV meaning - however much I want to grab them and scream very loudly, 'listen you idiot. That does not mean what you think it means. And it isn't POV'. Instead I have to take a chill pill and find some way putting up with their ignorance. :-). - FearÉIREANN 19:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's why we need a clear policy page that explains that styles aren't POV, so when idiots start removing them we can just point them in the direction of that page instead of having pointless and completely ridiculous arguments. Proteus (Talk) 20:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with FearÉIREANN's intention. But it this is going to be added to the style guide, it needs to a little more clear, maybe along the lines of "styles of address, such as blah blah". Maurreen 05:30, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK. So is everyone OK if I work on a wording for this? I'll paste it here first so everyone can see it and discuss it before putting it live on the main page. FearÉIREANN 19:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Styles do not have to be listed for every person who has one. For common styles, like "right honorable", it's enough that the appropriate article, like Member of Parliament describes it.

Another thing is, calling people who disagree with you "idiots" and calling their opinions "stupid presumptions" takes much from the weight of your own words and is definitely not the way towards a consensus. Zocky 16:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was talking about some of the arguments put forward to suggest that styles are POV, not in any way suggesting that any of the arguments here are idiotic. Far from it. I agree with Proteus that styles should feature. I am just pointing out that some people make presumptions that have nothing to do with facts and in fact will not listen to them. On one of the papal pages, for example, one person insisted categorised the use of 'His Holiness' as POV. Legions of wikipedians pointed out that it isn't but is simply a style of address and did not mean wikipedia was taking a stance. The person would not listen but adopted the stance that they were going to revert, revert, revert everywhere they saw 'Holiness' being used. 99.99999% were on one side of the argument. So were the facts, history, research, etc. But one person didn't care what anyone said - he thought it was POV so that was that. Personally I regard that atitude as, yes, idiotic. Unfortunately styles are one area where there is a danger of this thing happening. All I suggested was a way that can use the styles but not lay themselves open to charges of POV. And none of the arguments here by anyone have in any way been seen by me as idiotic or whatever. I have the height of respect for everyone here. They are all serious credible people who know what they are doing. FearÉIREANN 19:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is in the wrong place, which is why I've only just seen it. Naming conventions are to do with how articles are named. How subjects are treated in articles is dealt with in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). To be NPOV we must report what happens in the real world - and what happens in the real world is that some people are styled using honorifics. And so articles should, where appropriate, use them, jguk 20:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You keep mixing up two totally different things, Jguk. Styles and honorifics are different things. Honorifics are used frequently as part of a name, styles are a decorative feature used to show honour and respect for an office holder. They are used in completely different ways. How many people talk about the 'Honourable Speaker' when talking about the Speaker of Congress? They don't. Please understand that you are mixing up two different things, Jguk. FearÉIREANN 19:57, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Any intelligent discussion of this issue depends on clear definitions of title, honorific, and style. I hope that before making any new policies the basic terms can be agreed upon. Rather than deciding this in a vacuum, I suggest referring to practice elsewhere and looking at some style guides. I see, for example, that style guide of the British magazine The Economist entirely omits any mention of using honorifics in their entry on 'titles.' [1] I expect that they do not use them. -Willmcw 01:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Therein lies the rub. The terms "style", "title" and "honorific" apply to how a word/phrasing is used in a particular context. The same word/phrasing can be used in a variety of contexts. Of course "honorific" is really an adjective, not a noun, and when used as a noun is effectively short for "honorific style"!

Put another way, things which are styles and titles can often be used as honorifics, and where they are so used, they are honorifics. Similarly honorifics can often be used as styles and titles.

We are therefore not going to be able to say that any particular phrase is a "style" or "title" but not an "honorific".

Anyway, I think we are pretty much agreed, are we not, that honorific styles should not be used in title names, which is what this policy on this page is about, except in a very few instances, for example, when they are there to disambiguate, jguk 10:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Baronets

I don't like the current policy for baronets. I think the title should only be used when necessary to disambiguate. By the current rule, Robert Peel should be at Sir Robert Peel, 2nd Baronet. john k 17:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms

I'm bringing this discussion over from talk:Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom#Queen_Elizabeth_not_exclusively_Queen_of_the_UK

It is inaccurate to describe Elizabeth II as only the Queen of the U.K., as she is also, euqally, Queen of all her other Commonwealth Realms, ie. Queen Elizabeth II of Australia, Queen Elizabeth II of Jamaica, Queen Elizabeth II of Canada, etc.

I undestand that Section 4 of Monarchical Titles states: "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ones." But, in the case of Queen Elizabeth II, she is the Sovereign of one crown (note, the Crown, not the British Crown) over all 16 Realms, and is thus commonly associated with all of them. By the 1931 Statute of Westminster, no one Realm is superior to the other, and so to title her only as Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom implies supremacy of the U.K. over the other Realms.

I think it is within Wikipedia rules, and much more accurate, to title the page on Queen Elizabeth II as 'Queen Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms' gbambino

1) It's not "inaccurate" to call her Queen of the United Kingdom, because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. 2) She's most commonly associated with the United Kingdom. To suggest otherwise is just silly. 3) There are multiple crowns, one for each realm, not one big crown. 4) She is never ever ever described by the title you suggest. (Google: "Your search - "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms" - did not match any documents." "Your search - "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms" - did not match any documents.") Proteus (Talk) 21:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1) It is not inaccurate to call her Queen of the United Kingdom, she is certainly Queen of the U.K. But, it is inaccurate to title a page giving information on the Queen, who is queen of numerous Realms (and it says as much right on the page), only as Queen of the United Kingdom. It is also far from "silly" to suggest such a thing.

Claiming her position as Queen of the U.K. is superior to her position as Queen of any other Realm is factually inaccurate.

2) How is she "most commonly" associated with the United Kingdom? Do you mean because the media calls her the British Queen wherever she is, and no matter what she is doing? If so, then keep in mind they are as much in error in saying such things as Wikipedia is.

3) There are not multiple crowns. There is one Crown acting within the jurisdiction of each Realm. Please read the 1931 Statute of Westminster and see that the document only makes reference to the Crown.

Hence, the Crown operates in Canada as the Crown in Right of Canada, or, for simplicity’s sake, the Canadian Crown. In fact, any legal documentation in any Realm will make reference to the Crown, the Crown in Right of… , or Her Majesty The Queen in Right of…

4) Queen Elizabeth of the Commonwealth Realms is not an official title. I never suggested it was. But, if you want to stick to her official titles then you will have to title the page as Queen Elizabeth of… and list every country for which she is queen. That, of course, is somewhat ridiculous. So, Queen Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms is accurate and avoids having to list sixteen countries after her name. gbambino

We don't label earlier monarchs in such a way - it's Charles I of England not Charles I of England, Scotland & Ireland.

And if there's only one crown, why did each Dominion have to pass its own Act of Abdication in 1936? How could Edward VIII's reign end a day earlier than elsewhere in South Africa and a day later in the Irish Free State (or the other way round) if he and Parliament were only renouncing a single crown? Timrollpickering 22:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As noted on the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom talk page, I see no problem why we shouldn't have that article (and those for the monarchs since George V) named simply "Elizabeth II" ("George V", "Edward VIII", "George VI"). I also note that if you type these into "search" they redirect to Elizabeth of the United Kingdom, etc.. A title such as "Elizabeth II" does not prefer one realm over another. As this change would only currently affect the titles of 4 articles, I do not see how any changeover could be interpreted as an unwelcome precedent, jguk 21:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

With Tim, I will again point out that the British Commonwealth since 1931 is not unique - throughout European history monarchs have held multiple titles. Occasionally, we include multiple titles in the article title – Louis II of Hungary and Bohemia being the only example I can think of at the moment, and I think that is probably the wrong location – but almost always we simply use one title. This gets back to Gbambino's response to Proteus's fourth point - the way we deal with monarchs who have multiple titles is normally to just list the first title in the article title. Jguk - it absolutely sets a bad precedent, because there are dozens of monarchs who have been monarchs of multiple countries. This will open the question of titles for all those people. And George V certainly is not unambiguous - There was King George V of Hanover, at the very least, and probably some other German monarchs, although I can't think of any at the moment. john k 23:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It would also set a bad precedent as there are numerous monarchs who are utterly unambiguous - Louis XIV, for instance. john k 23:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I still think there's uniqueness. To start with it's the only currently subsisting example of a combined monarchical role. Also, we are dealing with the only monarch of English-speaking nations, and this is the English Wikipedia (OK, Malaysia has English as one of 4? official languages, but you know what I'm getting at). It is also indisputably the case that anyone referring to "Elizabeth II" is referring to HM The Queen. And finally, as to your claim that George V is unambiguous - (1) I think that, unless the context determines otherwise, all native English speakers will think you are referring to the late British (etc. etc.) King; (2) "George V" is currently a straight redirect to "George V of the United Kingdom", which itself does not have any disambiguation for other George V's. Therefore I do not see disambiguation as being a problem (if you are concerned about this, we'll do something like Julius Caesar (the great late 19th century cricketer;) ). I think all that Gbambino is asking for is recognition that QEII is not just Queen of the UK. Since it is a fact that she is also the Queen of a number of other independent nations, I have no problem in adopting a style that does not specifically link her to the UK, jguk 23:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've just changed George V into a redirect, and changed all the links. At any rate, the article as it is fully acknowledges that she is not queen only of the UK, just as the article on Henry IV acknowledges that he was also King of Navarre. I do not see how the situations are any different. john k 23:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would have preferred it if you had waited till we had concluded this discussion (I wouldn't have pointed it out else - and I'm not sure what you have done is consistent with WP disambiguation policy). Anyways, I think we have both stated our cases and should await other views - it's just a question of whether we just wait here or list it on WP:RfC. Certainly I'd welcome views from others, jguk 00:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you want to, you can just move my disambiguation page to George V (disambiguation), redirect George V to the page on the King of the UK, and add a disambiguation note to the top. john k 06:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, don't do that. What you've done is right. Deb 17:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am another, I am Canadian, and I agree wholly with gbambino. I would never, EVER, refer to my Queen as the "Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", EVER. I always refer to her as "Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada". I think that "The Queen of the Commonwealth Realms" seems a very fitting title for her, and even if it is not yet official, it seems to make much more sense than only mentioning her as Queen of one of her many realms. --Maxwell C. 00:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms" is an absurd title that no one uses, and as such should not be the title of an article. Furthermore, no Scottish person would ever, EVER have referred to James VI as "James I of England". But yet, that is where the article is. People in Castile did not call Charles V "the Emperor", but called him "King Carlos I of Castile". And so on and so forth. Articles can only be in one place. For monarchs, the policy is and has been that they go with their principal title. The sentimental dislike for the fact that she is primarily associated with the UK by a bunch of commonwealth realm monarchists shouldn't change this. john k 06:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As for the monarchs who are, or were, simultaneously sovereigns of multiple countries, I understand that this problem goes beyond Elizabeth II. However, I think this issue has shown that the problem is a fundamental one with the overall procedure to title pages on monarchs.

It was stated earlier "it is standard practice to use the first of several technically equal realms, only, in article titles" and "just list the first title in the article title". If this is the case, how can one realm be placed in advance of "equal" realms? That is a contradiction in terms. And, that point aside, what, or who, decides what the "first" title is? Is that the first obtained? Then the page on James VI and I is wrong. Is it the fist 'associated'? Well, that's a matter of opinion, as English may say James I is more important, whereas Scots will say James VI. (John k admitted as much when saying "no Scottish person would ever, EVER have referred to James VI as "James I of England.")

That leads into the point that using the argument "she is best known as..." or "the fact that she is primarily associated with the UK" doesn't fly either-- that's just a biased point of view. As Scots and English will differ over James VI and I, so will Canadians, Australians, Britons, etc. differ over Elizabeth II.

All that needs to be put aside, and what needs to be realised is that it is as accurate and unbiased to say James VI of Scotland was equally James I of England, as it is to say Elizabeth II of the U.K. is equally Elizabeth II of Canada. And the Wikipedia pages should reflect the fact that the realms are equal, not opinion about which realm is more important.

With that in mind, I wonder if it is possible to be methodical about monarchs, and simply title the entire page with their name and most superior title, for example, Queen Elizabeth II, and perhaps the dates of birth and death. Then, immediately below have a 1st list outlining the most superior titles, organized first by country in alphabetical order, and secondarily by the dates on which they were obtained.

Then, in another paragraph, a 2nd list of any subsidiary titles such as Duke of.., again, in order of supremacy first, then by country alphabetically, and then by dates obtained.

This could continue on for previous titles, etc., for as much information as can be collected by Wikipedia.

I've set up an example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II_%281926-_present%29_%28trial%29 It can be deleted by the moderators when finished with, as I only did it as a demonstration.

This may not be perfect, yet, but I think it’s a more unbiased and factually correct way to give information about monarchs. If 2 monarchs have the same name (ie. 2 King George Vs), it will be clear in the dates of birth and death, dates of ascension, and listed countries of which they were king, which George V a researcher is looking for. gbambino

Sigh. The current nomenclature was devised over a long period, and has stood up without causing serious problems for a long time. A system with George V (1865-1936) and George V (1819-1878) would, I suppose, make sense, but it would be unnecessarily confusing to those who don't know much about them. Furthermore, you are simply wrong to say that it is POV to choose a single country. The fairly simple criterion of which country the monarch lived in should do. James VI and I is an unusual case, as he was King of Scotland alone for years before becoming King of England. But Charles I visited Scotland once during his reign, for instance. Calling him Charles I of England is to acknowledge what was acknowledge about him by others at the time, who would have universally referred to him as "the King of England" or just "England", and not "the King of England, Scotland, and Ireland". Now, obviously, the question of which realm is superior can be difficult to establish. When one title is higher than another, that makes it easier - that the Holy Roman Emperor was also, and separately, King of Hungary, King of Bohemia, Archduke of Austria, and so on and so forth should of course be noted, but the imperial title is higher, and so gets to be in the title. For people who were King (or Duke, or whatever) of several places, it's more complicated, but usually not terribly so. Charles III of Spain had earlier been Charles VII of Naples (and Charles V of Sicily), but his abandonment of those kingdoms makes Charles III of Spain the proper title. And so forth. The current system is fine, and there's no reason to abandon it. john k 21:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see. So, the opinion, given elsewhere, of "I think we [can] give the Wikipedia people the benefit of the doubt and say they're just being a little lazy," is actually true.

I'm disappointed that Wikipedia chooses to remain with a standard that relies on point of view, rather than trying to be more factual. After all, you once stated that "the fact that she lives in Britain is completely immaterial." Therfore, you contradict your other comment explaining that the more dominant realm is chosen by "the fairly simple criterion of which country the monarch lived in." So, it becomes clear that you have no real method to choose which realm is associated more strongly with the monarch, it is purely and simply your own personal choice. gbambino

To note - as far as I can gather my statement that you quote was not an actual statement of my views, but a mistake, in which I said the exact opposite of what I meant - reading that post, my point is clearly that the fact that she lives in Britain is completely material. john k 23:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now.

However, I will still argue that the fact of constitutional law overrides where the monarch lives. Whether she lived in Tuvalu, Jamaica, or the U.K. doesn't matter. Not one bit. It would still remain undeniable, and absolute fact that the Queen would be queen equally of all her realms.

Aside from hinting that changing the 'standards' would be an inconvenience, you still have not given a convincing argument as to why the above facts, and not simply about Elixabeth iI, but all monarchs who reigned equally over more than one country, should not affect the format of Wikipedia pages on monarchs. In fact, what you have explained above about the country the monarch living in being in the title (George I of England), or the higher title being in the title (Holy Roman Emperor), or some monarchs being specail cases (James I of England), only serves to show just how convoluted the long developed Wikipedia standards are.

But, of course, the decision remains in your hands. gbambino

Actually, the decision is in the hands of the wikipedia community as a group. I certainly would not want to give the impression that those of us who have worked on these standards in the past are an exclusive oligarchy, and that we have any more rights over the content of the articles than anybody else. But I still think your concerns are essentially either misguided or impractical. Now, we could have articles at places like George I, King of Great Britain and Ireland, Elector of Hanover. But this would be extraordinarily awkward, and would make it hard for anybody to find the article. It also leaves unclear such questions as which crowns count and which don't. George I, for instance, did not call himself "King of Great Britain and Ireland." His official style was "King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland." But he was not actually King of France. So how does that fit in? And what about the French monarchs as kings of Navarre. Under Henry IV and the first ten years of Louis XIII, the tiny piece of Navarre which had remained to its French kings, rather than being annexed by Spain, remained constitutionally separate from France. In 1620, it was incorporated administratively within the Kingdom of France, but the French kings retained the style "King of France and Navarre." So do we call Henry IV Henry IV of France and Navarre but Louis XIV just Louis XIV of France, even though they bore the same title? What about monarchs who at different times ruled over different places. For instance, as I noted somewhere else, the third son of King Philip V of Spain became Duke of Parma as Charles (Carlo) I in 1731. He reigned there for four years. He then gave up Parma, and became King of Naples and Sicily. So he was Charles (Carlo) VII of Naples and Charles (Carlo) V of Sicily until his elder brother died in 1759. Then he gave up the two Italian thrones and became King Charles (Carlos) III of Spain. How would you suggest we title that article? My argument is not that moving the articles would be inconvenient. It's that it opens a whole can of worms and there's no easy answers. The current system has worked well. It means that you know where articles on European monarchs should be, and those titles are not particularly awkward. Sure, the system is in some respects arbitrary, and it doesn't deal as well as it might with some issues. But there are going to be significant problems with any system that is devised. The current system generally works along the lines of listing only one title. Which title that is is usually determined by either the highest title, or the most commonly used title. There are few cases where this cannot be very easily determined, and in Elizabeth's case, it is remarkably not difficult. john k 04:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

gbambino, can you point to any official documents or even any unofficial ones that refer to Elizabeth as "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms"? If not then you are coining a new title and it is agaisnt wikipedia policy to coin new words or titles, that would be the same thing as "orginal research". We report, we do not invent. AndyL 22:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is probably an acceptable solution, even if it is not perfect. This is because:

• Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, etc. is impractical and Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom can be seen as shorthand for it.
• We can create redirects such as Elizabeth II of Canada, Elizabeth II of Australia, etc.
• As for why the main page should be the "of the United Kingdom" one rather than of any other realm, it is simply because it is the most common usage. Even in Canada her official title is "Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada and her other Realms and Territories". The only other contender for popular usage would be "of England", which is sadly not only incomplete but also incorrect.
• Clearly "of the United Kingdom" is not perfect. However the alternative "of the Commonwealth Realms" simply has no precedent.
• "Elizabeth II, Head of the Commonwealth" would sound better and is possibly the only title that would be completely impartial, being accepted not only in all the Realms, but throughout the Commonwealth. However, it perhaps obscures the fact that her primary role is that of Queen, and that historically (if not constitutionally) she is Queen of Canada, Australia, etc. and Head of the Commonwealth because she is Queen of the United Kingdom and not the other way round. However, I would have no problem with this compromise.
• This is clearly not a problem that is restricted to Elizabeth II: e.g. James VI of Scotland and I of England, etc. People just have to accept that we cannot please everybody, and we have to have some sort of uniformity across our articles. Andrew Yong 23:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Andrew, you make some very good points, and I understand them all. However, I have the following comments:

• Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, etc. is impractical and Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom can be seen as shorthand for it.

This, I absolutely agree with. Listing all 16 of her Realms in the title of a Wikipedia page is ridiculous.

• We can create redirects such as Elizabeth II of Canada, Elizabeth II of Australia, etc.

This can be done, and has been. For instance, there is a page on Elizabeth II of Austrlalia, titled only as "Queen of Australia", at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Australia However, the page which used to be titled "Queen of Canada" was altered to be "Monarchy in Canada". And, the biggest problem with the current state of things is that any search on Elizabeth II will immediately take one to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.

• As for why the main page should be the "of the United Kingdom" one rather than of any other realm, it is simply because it is the most common usage. Even in Canada her official title is "Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada and her other Realms and Territories". The only other contender for popular usage would be "of England", which is sadly not only incomplete but also incorrect.

The most common usage does not play into this I believe. The majority of people deem Elizabeth II always as Queen of Britain purely because they are ignorant of the institution of the Crown as it currently exists. I feel strongly that continuing to call Elizabeth II purely the Queen of the U.K. only abets the ignorance, rather than shedding light on the accurate facts. Listing her other Realms beneath or after the U.K. may be better, but only very slightly as it still makes Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Canada, etc. seem subordinate and inferior compared to the U.K.

Also, as for her title in Canada, Canada is the only country, outside of Grenada and the U.K. itself, which includes the U.K. in her title. Personally, I think this is wrong, and Canada should title her as her other Realms do. However, the 1953 Royal Titles and Styles Act is only a piece of Canadian legislation, and in no way affects her constitutional role as the Queen of Canada, shared equally with the other Realms.

• Clearly "of the United Kingdom" is not perfect. However the alternative "of the Commonwealth Realms" simply has no precedent.

I agree now that Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms is not appropriate for Wikipedia as it is not an official title (though I do still think it's a good one!).

And the point that "of the United Kingdom" is not perfect shows that there must somehow be a way to improve the Wikipedia page, and those others that pertain to monarchs who were simultaneously reigned over more than one country.

• "Elizabeth II, Head of the Commonwealth" would sound better and is possibly the only title that would be completely impartial, being accepted not only in all the Realms, but throughout the Commonwealth. However, it perhaps obscures the fact that her primary role is that of Queen, and that historically (if not constitutionally) she is Queen of Canada, Australia, etc. and Head of the Commonwealth because she is Queen of the United Kingdom and not the other way round. However, I would have no problem with this compromise.

You're right that her role as Head of the Commonwealth of Nations is something completely different to her role as Queen of the Realms of the Commonwealth. In this case, the latter is the more important, and so I don't think Elizabeth II, Head of the Commonwealth is appropriate. Countries such as India and South Africa are members of the Commonwealth, and they recognize her as head of that organization, but she is not their head of state, as she is for Canada, Australia, et al.

Also, you're right that the accidents of history have led her to become Queen of Canada, Australia, etc. because of her being Queen of the U.K., but the institutions of the Monarchy and the Crown have evolved in the past 74 years and she is, in reality, no longer simply and uniquely British.

• This is clearly not a problem that is restricted to Elizabeth II: e.g. James VI of Scotland and I of England, etc. People just have to accept that we cannot please everybody, and we have to have some sort of uniformity across our articles.

No, this problem is not unique to Queen Elizabeth II. I have kept that in mind while trying to figure out what could be done; whatever applies to Elizabeth II must apply to all others who were monarchs of several countries/territories at once. gbambino

Middle Names in Peer Articles

And now for something completely different...

Over at Talk:William Ward, 2nd Earl of Dudley, I have been arguing with Adam Carr over whether the article should actually be at William Humble Ward, 2nd Earl of Dudley. My arguments has been that whenever his full name is listed, the Humble is included, making that the most common form. Adam's argument is that since he is normally just called "Lord Dudley," the Humble is not usually included, meaning it should be excluded from the article title. This argument seems odd to me - the form we use for articles on peers is never the name by which they are most commonly known, because it is an artificial construct. But that artificial construct does show up a lot, and I think it makes more sense to use the most commonly used form of that construct, not to just exclude all middle names en masse.

At any rate, given that middle names have been being ruthlessly culled for the last several months without any specific warrant in policy, I thought we should debate this and try to come to some consensus on how to deal with it. I'd say that when the number of middle names is not unreasonable, and the person is known exclusively as a peer, they should be included in the title. I'm not sure beyond that, but I don't especially like the current operation. Any thoughts? (Also, would anyone like to comment about my earlier question about baronets?) john k 16:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree that middle names should be retained, especially as in the example you cite is one where the middle name is well known and used. After all, who would ever look under "William Hearst" for the famous 20th century publisher? Would we find someone unfamiliar with Welsh names retitling the british prime minister from WWI as "David George"? Does Pygmalion's author become George Shaw? John Kenney's position is the most logical.--StanZegel 19:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stan - Adam isn't saying that middle names should not be used for non-peers who are best known with their middle names. He is saying that because peers are almost never best known by any of their given names (but rather as "Lord Suchandsuch"), peers should never have the middle name, unless they were known before they became peers by their full name. At least, that's I think what he's arguing. This seems silly to me. john k 21:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with what you say Adam's arguing, actually. To take an extreme example, the present Earl of Shrewsbury is called Charles Henry John Benedict Crofton Chetwynd Chetwynd-Talbot. He's never been known by any of those names (as he was "the Viscount Ingestre" from birth until succeeding to the peerage), and yet putting him at Charles Henry John Benedict Crofton Chetwynd Chetwynd-Talbot, 22nd Earl of Shrewsbury is clearly ridiculous. I'd rather say "he's known to his friends as "Charles", his mother probably called him "Charles", so we'll call him that too", and put him at Charles Chetwynd-Talbot, 22nd Earl of Shrewsbury. I also feel that using the full name implies that a person was actually known by all their names, and thus that format should be reserved for people who actually are, like John Julius Cooper, 2nd Viscount Norwich, who is actually known as "John Julius". Proteus (Talk) 21:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, to an extent. Doing the full name for somebody with twelve names is absurd. Of course, sometimes "Charles" isn't the name that his mother and friends call him by, and sometimes we don't know that. So we should be careful on that front. But for someone like William Humble Ward, 2nd Earl of Dudley, this is not the case. As an article title, that is perfectly manageable. And it is how he is known. (I'll refer back to Ulysses, where he is referred to as "William Humble, Earl of Dudley". One to two middle names seems essentially manageable to me, especially since often times British public figures are known by initials - E.F.L. Wood, for instance (although he's at Edward Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax, I believe), and so forth. I think the presumption should be to show that the middle names are either a) absurd or b) rarely used. john k 21:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that we should adopt what is, in effect, "normal" behaviour here - peers get middle names in their article titles if they use them often, and not otherwise. Wouldn't that be easiest?

Of course, "often" is a judgement call, but that's what we have human editors for anyway ;-)

James F. (talk) 22:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that Adam's argument seems to ultimately be that unless the person was known before they became a peer, you should never use the middle name, because they're commonly known as "Lord Suchandsuch", and thus not by the middle name. This just seems too extreme to me. john k 23:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well it makes sense if you view the whole "real" name more as a convenience than as part of the "most common name" of the person. We can't have an article called 2nd Earl of Loamshire, so we make it Forename Surname, 2nd Earl of Loamshire, which in this case is William Ward, 2nd Earl of Dudley (or in my example Charles Chetwynd-Talbot, 22nd Earl of Shrewsbury). We're clearly not going to include all the names for people like Lord Shrewsbury, and it seems a little inconsistent to leave out all his middle names but include those of people with only one or two. I can't comment on which is more common in this case, as the Google results are ridiculously skewed on one side by Wikipedia mirrors and on the other side by peerage sites which always list full names. But from a purely aesthetic point of view, if a person is best (or only) known by a peerage, it seems odd to have more of the article title than necessary taken up by his "real" name. John Murray, 1st Earl of Ilay (someone I just made up) makes you think "ah, Lord Ilay" much more quickly than does John William George Murray, 1st Earl of Ilay. Proteus (Talk) 23:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suppose, but this seems problematic to me, especially since with aristocratic Britons it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between surnames and middle names, due to all the adding of new names, and so forth, as a result of inheritances. It should also be noted that the name one's mother calls one in the case of the 2nd Earl of Dudley is highly misleading - the ODNB notes that he was called "Eddie," due to his courtesy title of Viscount Ednam. Should this then be at Eddie Ward, 2nd Earl of Dudley? I'll add that the "Humble" as much as the "2nd" disambiguates him from his father. john k 23:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another case is Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay, where there has been controversy over my moving the page from Thomas Macaulay. He is often referred to as either "Lord Macaulay" or "Thomas Babington Macaulay" - both appear of the title pages of editions of his books. His name is never given in the form "Thomas Macaulay" and it would be absurd to use that as the first half of the article title just because "Lord Macaulay" is a bit more common. Timrollpickering 01:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposals for sub-king monarchs, continental nobility, and monarchs with surnames

These issues have all been giving me headaches, so I thought I'd just propose some standards and see what people say. If no one responds at all after a week, I'm just going to incorporate them into the article and start moving articles to correspond.

A) Sub-King European monarchs - Because non-royal monarchs of places that later became kingdoms often double numbers with their successors (the Frederick Augustus of Saxony problem), monarchs below the level of kings should be at Name Number, Title of Place. That is to say Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria or Ferdinand III, Grand Duke of Tuscany rather than Maximilian I of Bavaria (here, again, we see the overlap problem) or Ferdinand III of Tuscany (here there is no overlap problem, but I think consistency is to be valued here. This would require changes to the current monarchies of Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, and Monaco.

B) Continental nobility - The headache of continental nobility was always determining whether or not they were sovereign, and thus get a Name of Place, rather than regular nobility which gets Name, Title of Place. With the first proposal in place, this becomes less of a problem. I propose that

Pt. 1 - French nobility

1. For French nobility, use the form Firstname (Surname, if any), Ordinal Frenchtitle de Frenchlacename for ordinary nobility. Ordinals should not be used if they would not normally be used - e.g. for royal dukes.
   • I'm open to suggestion whether we use the French or English ordinal forms. I'm also uncertain if we should capitalize the French titles or not. The French themselves do not, but that looks kind of funny.
2. For French nobility that is semi-sovereign, we use Firstname, Englishtitle of Englishplacename. Thus Louis, Duc de Bourgogne, but Philip III, Duke of Burgundy. These would largely be medieval rulers - nobody after the 16th century should fall into this category.

Pt. 2 - Other continental nobility

1. Always use English titles (Duke, not Duque or Herzog, &c)
2. Use ordinal when appropriate (e.g. for Spanish and Italian nobles, but not for folks from the Holy Roman Empire)

C) Monarchs with surnames - Monarchs with surnames that are generally used (especially Italian princelings like the Estes, Gonzagas, Farneses, Medicis, but also Polish monarchs), go at the form Firstname Surname, Title of Place. So Cosimo I de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, not Cosimo de' Medici (the current location) or Cosimo I of Tuscany (what current practice would suggest we should do). Similarly, John III Sobieski, King of Poland, not John III of Poland or John Sobieski or the current monstrosity that I, sadly, am responsible for, John III Sobieski of Poland. This would not apply to the Tudor and Stewart rulers of England and Scotland.

• I'm undecided about whether this should apply to the medieval German monarchs post-Hohenstaufen and pre-Habsburg. Louis IV of Bavaria, Holy Roman Emperor seems fine to me, but I'd like to hear what others think. [I've decided that I don't like this idea. john k 16:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

Comments? Thoughts? Suggestions? john k 22:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An additional proposal:

That we discard the rule saying that monarchs who are the only one of their name never use the ordinal. We should use the ordinal when it is used in the country of which that person is a monarch. This, of course, requires more judgment, but surely we are at the point where we can handle this. So we'd have Juan Carlos I of Spain or Karl I of Austria, but still have Victoria of the United Kingdom and Beatrix of the Netherlands. Thoughts? john k

I'm surprised this additional proposal isn't already the naming convention. I'm in favour of it, jguk 22:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm in favour, too. Very clear and logical. And I think Louis IV of Bavaria, Holy Roman Empire is very good; this style should really be employed to all HREs (though I guess some of them weren't kings, and then we get two titles in the article title, but I don't mind that). Only two questions:

1. Is there, really, a reason to treat kings differently? Why not have Maximilian I, King of Bavaria etc. as well?

2. Is there, really, a reason to treat France differently? What's wrong with "Louis, Duke of Bourgogne"? -- Jao 14:49, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

In order:

1. We already have conventions for kings and emperors, which have worked well for a long time. I certainly don't want to open up that can of worms. Do you really want to have to move every king? Henry II of England to Henry II, King of England; Leopold I of Belgium to Leopold I, King of the Belgians, and so on? I don't think that, a priori, this is a bad idea, but it's a lot of hassle. If there's a consensus that the whole naming policy for kings should be changed as well, I'd be happy to comply (we'd finally get Mary I, Queen of Scots instead of Mary I of Scotland, at the very least), but this proposal was to fill in gaps, not to entirely overhaul naming policies. The big problem as I see it is that we're never sure how to name the articles under discussion so that 1) the titles currently in use are completely inconsistent; and 2) I (and I would imagine others) are dissuaded from actually starting articles on such people because we aren't sure what to call them. I wouldn't want that to be hijacked by discussions of a much broader naming change.

2. "Louis, Duke of Bourgogne" is just weird. "Louis, Duke of Burgundy" is arguable, I think, and might be more appropriate. But the basic principle still stands that France should be treated differently. Why? Because actual English convention is to use French titles for French aristocracy. It is not the convention to do this for Spanish or German aristocracy, for the most part. French is the most familiar foreign language to English-speakers (and to Anglophone historians). I've noted before that most encyclopedias call the French regent from 1715-1723 the "Duc d'Orléans" and not the "Duke of Orleans". On the other hand, most call the Spanish general the "Duke of Alva" not the "Duque d'Alva". Just trying to follow standard usage. john k 16:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of course, I completely forgot that there's an English name for Bourgogne; I meant to say "What's wrong with Louis, Duke of Burgundy?". I would be happy to have consistency, but if the use of French titles in English is that common, I guess Wikipedia is not the place to try and change it. (This argument is kind of the same as the reason to have Infante of Spain rather than Prince of Spain, right? As English is not my first language, I have trouble seeing these nuances sometimes.) -- Jao 23:26, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's not really clearcut - of all the French nobility, Dukes of Burgundy and Brittany are by far the least likely to have the French name used, ever. Probably because the French and English names are so considerably different, unlike the case with, say, Artois, Provence, or Orleans. But, yes, the argument is similar to using "Infante of Spain", although in that case it's more complicated, since "Prince" is a different word in Spanish from "Infant", iirc. So, basically, in English we tend to use French titles for French people, but not always. We tend to use English titles for everybody else, although occasionally Germans, Italians, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese will get native-language titles. But drawing the line at French/non-French seems to be the way that best combines common usage with some kind of rational order. john k 00:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having dug through a pile of continental nobility lately, I have to say I favor using the native names for the titles, not only because it's often the most common usage in Enmglish, but it also eliminates the use of doubtful translations (the 1911EB is positively comical in its attempts to translate Japanese titles as "count" for instance). In addition, we have a principle of using people's names as they used them, without attempting to invent translation, so the Italians don't do "Giorgio Washington", and if "duc de Broglie" is part of a name, it should be left alone. On the other hand, "Elector" still seems preferable to "Kurfürst". I'd also suggest allowing more exceptions to the default; common usage has often settled on shorter names for a good reason. The habit of longer names also tends to result in excessive free links, since it would take dozens of redirs to catch all the missing accents, capitalizations, ad nauseam. The world of continental nobility is not nearly so neat and tidy as the British peerage, it would be pretty unnatural to try to force it. Stan 03:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, my reaction is varied. Of course, I agree with you fully on French nobility. I can certainly be persuaded on other Romance language area nobility, although I'm not convinced that we should have the "Duque d'Alva" rather than the "Duke of Alva", whatever he called himself (and, as one gets longer and longer ago, it becomes harder and harder to say what people called themselves). I would rather disagree for German titles - After 1918, certainly we should call someone Hermann Graf von Mullenheim rather than Count Hermann of Mullenheim, or Hermann, Count of Mullenheim. Before that, well...this actually gets into my next point, which relates to semi-sovereign or sovereign sub-king people. Prince-Electors, Dukes of Bavaria, Landgraves of Hesse - these should definitely not use the native title, on the principle elucidated earlier. We've never used monarchs names as they used them, without attempting to invent translation - we use the form most commonly used in English, as far as that can be determined. The same should be done for these kind of people, even if they aren't kings. In terms of redirects - I think we're stuck with them, no matter what. These people's names are so complicated that no matter what is decided upon, you're going to have to set up a bunch of redirects. john k 14:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I had thought that the Japanese title translations were fairly standardized - one still sees them, I think, as when "Prince Konoe" is talked about, or what not. At any rate, I was mostly talking about European nobility, rather than extra-European. john k 14:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's been significantly more than a week, and predictably, I've received very few comments. In particular, nobody has expressed any opinions on the parts of my proposal where I wasn't sure what to do. So, I'll ask the questions again:

1. Should French nobility use English or French-style ordinals? (i.e. "3rd" or "3eme"?)
2. Should titles for French nobility be capitalized or not? (i.e. "duc" or "Duc"?)
3. Given that there's been objection made, do people think that non-French European titled nobility should use the English or native forms of their title? (i.e. "Duke" or "Duque" for a Spaniard; or "Count" or "Graf" for a German)

That said, there seemed to be no continued objections to my proposals for sub-kingly monarchs or use of the ordinal "I". I will add these changes to the proposal page later today. john k 17:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. Hmm - my instinct is to use the English ordinals as "3rd" just strikes me as more natural than "3eme", regardless of the form of title.
2. I haven't any books to hand to check but isn't it the English writing convention to capitalist the titles?
3. Yes, although with possibilities for very well known exceptions.

Timrollpickering 22:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the third question, do you mean they should use the English names? Because it wasn't a yes or no. The other points seem sensible, although English convention with regard to "duc" vs. "Duc" seems highly unclear - especially since many sources now cease to capitalize even British noble titles (e.g., I read a whole book on the 5th Earl of Argyll which referred to him throughout as the "earl of Argyll".) john k 23:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be expected that non-English titles can only be translated if in fact there is a single correct translation. For instance, Graf says "a count or an earl", which is not exactly the clear definition that one would want for a translation! I agree that "3rd" seems more sensible that "3eme", so much for trying to preserve native form. BTW, is there no possibility of an authoritative style manual? EB seems to use one, they're reasonably self-consistent, but what manual? Stan 04:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that EB is using its own internal stylebook, a la the New York Times, rather than relying exclusively on a standard stylebook. Mowens35 12:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Although it was once standard to translate "Graf," "Comte," "Conte," "Conde," and so forth as "Earl," and it remains standard to translate earl into those languages by those words, at present "earl" only refers to the British peers holding those titles. The standard translation into English of all those words when referring to continental titles is always "Count." john k 05:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

hi k. this topic is indeed difficult, and I have to constantly do battles about this issue.

I think we should keep the french nobility the way the french spell it, with titles in small letters (duc, princesse, etc...). The english name can be incorporated into the article, so a search function will always find it. I know that alot of people have a problem with this (this is an "english" only website, etc etc etc..), nevertheless I am still sticking to this point of view. Therefore, German noble titles should also be in German I think. The reason is this: how would you ever translate a name like "Karl Ritter von Ghega". if this would be an english-only site, then we would have to translate this gentleman into "Charles Knight of Ghega". which is absolutely ridiculous. another case is "Otto Graf Lambsdorff". correctly, he would have to be spelled "Count Otto Lambsdorff". however, since 1919, noble titles in Germany have been incorporated into personal names. so it´s best to stick to the german version I think.

the other side I have kept on hearing is to use the name, that they are most known under, not under their original names. Problems are attached with that approach as well though, because how do you determine which is the most common version in english?

basically in that case, there is not one-fits-all solution. in cases where people are not so well known, do the original name. and if it´s someone much more well known (for example Archduke Charles, instead of Erzherzog Karl) then probably do an english translation. I personally would still prefer the original version though, but I can see how doing a search would be difficult in that case.. let me know what you think. cheers Antares911 00:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Popes and Antipopes

First, a minor point - whatever the merits of using "His Holiness," they don't have to do with naming conventions, which have to do with how you title an article. So I've reverted that change.

Second point - We've been having a dispute over at Talk:Schismatic Pope Alexander V (or whatever it is by the time you read this), about how to deal with article titles for antipopes. Nat Krause and others seem to dislike the use of "Antipope" in article titles, and feel it is POV, in that wikipedia is determining that these people were not really pope. I don't think this is right - we are calling them antipope because they are normally recognized as antipopes by other people, and because nobody anymore recognizes them as having actually been pope. The issue with Alexander V is more complicated, since it has not been definitively stated that he necessarily was an antipope. I'm not sure how to deal with this. But I do think we need a real standard for how to title articles on antipopes. john k 14:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A couple points: John Kenney makes a good point that few people living would have a problem with describing antipopes as antipopes. Still, I'm not convinced that it can ever be really NPOV to call somebody something unless both a) it is widely accepted in the present, and b) it would have been acceptable to the person in question. There may be times when it would be unavoidable to make such a comment in the article, but it should be avoided as much as possible in the article titles. Certainly, an antipope would have vigorously debated being called an antipope. Similarly, it doesn't seem very advisable to me to label anyone as a pope unless they are very widely accepted as such by the relevant followers. As an alternative, I would prefer to use personal names, particularly in the cases of people, such as Baldassare Cossa / Antipope John XXIII, who are fairly well known by that name; or else, to use standard disambiguation measures, such as (papal claimant) or (timeperiod papal claimant), i.e. Alexander V (papal claimant) or John XXIII (15th century papal claimant). Another option, which is in use in some pages, has rival popes as Avignon Pope Thisandthat or perhaps Pisan Pope Suchandsuch. This is okay, but it strikes me as a little nouvelle (I don't know if other sources ever use this convention), possibly a little confusing for readers who don't know what a "Pisan Pope" means, and possibly misleading, as in the case of Alexander V, who may well have had a lot of followers, during and after his life, outside of the Pisan Party. This convention might also not be generalizable to all antipopes. - Nat Krause 09:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Common English Equivalent of Names

This may have been discussed in previous archives but Wiki stylebook indicates that the titles of article about foreign rulers and royals should reference the closest English equivalent of their names. Wiki's articles about the Spanish royal family, however, use their Spanish names -- ie Juan Carlos, Felipe, Sofia, et cetera -- as do those for the present Swedish king and his wife -- Carl XVI Gustaf and Silvia. Wiki stylebook seems to dictate that this usage is incorrect, and that we should be referring to them as John Charles, Philip, Sophia, Charles XVI Gustavus, and Sylvia. Non-royal heads of state, however, keep their original names, seemingly no matter what, ie Nicolae Ceaucescu and Mikhail Gorbachev, which seems illogical. I have read the relevant passages re naming conventions over and over and still come to this conclusion. Can somebody explain, succinctly, to me where I am perhaps misreading the citation? If indeed I am? Mowens35 12:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I've said before, my impression is that is that we are not to use the anglicized name, but the most common name used in English. This is in line with our general policy. In many cases, the anglicized form is not used, and the original form is. It would be absurd to anglicize in situations where the name is never anglicized, like Juan Carlos. But it would also be unfortunate to have to use Felipe II of Spain, which is highly uncommon, as well. Obviously, there's no scientific way to determine which title is right, but the system seems to generally work pretty well. john k 03:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article titles for Queen Consorts

I think we drastically need a new policy for how to name articles on queen consorts. Naming them by their maiden name works well for dynastic spouses in many western European countries. Louis XIII married Anne of Austria (actually of Spain, but who's counting?). Henry VIII married Catherine of Aragon. And so forth. These are the standard terms used to refer to these women. But in many other cases, this doesn't seem to really be the case. Most Russian Empress-Consorts are best known by, well, their Russian name. Alexandra Feodorovna, Marie Feodorovna, and so forth. Having the Dowager Empress at Dagmar of Denmark is just criminal, as is having Alexandra at Alix of Hesse and by Rhine, or wherever she is at the moment. Having Queen Marie of Romania at Princess Marie of Edinburgh seems similarly problematic (especially since queen-consorts are not supposed to have "Princess" or "Grand Duchess" or "Archduchess" or "Duchess" before their name in article titles). Sisi being at Elizabeth of Bavaria, a move for which I fought, is similarly problematic. And for consorts of smaller European countries, these things seem to be deeply haphazardly located, some at Name of Countryofwhichtheywerequeen some at Name of Countryofwhichtheywerebornaprincess. At any rate, I'm not sure how exactly we should deal with this, but I think the current convention is simply inappropriate - Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. john k 22:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually I first became aware of Alexandra Feodorovna as Dagmar of Denmark off wikipedia. Ditto with Elizabeth of Bavaria for Sisi. I think that once we have have the necessary redirect pages the system is OK. It isn't an issue of genealogy, it is a normal history reference. I actually had never heard of Dagmar referred to as Alexandra Feodorovna before I came to wikipedia. In English I think the Dagmar reference is normal, while in Russian the Alexandra Feodorovna is standard. My gut reaction is that all European monarchs should be in the form of historical reference generally used in English, which AFAIK is maiden name. I think trying to do it by individual country, where local usage dictates local formats, would be a recipe for edit wars and conflict. But I have a lot of respect for John so I am interested in his opinions. FearÉIREANN 03:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Dagmar was Marie Feodorovna. Alix was Alexandra Feodorovna. john k 05:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Members of the public usually do not think of Dagmar of Denmark, they think of Maria Fedorovna.

I noticed that after I had saved by but was too tired to bother going back and changing it. :-) FearÉIREANN 06:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I much prefer to have the listings for queens-consort and empresses-consort under their maiden names. The reason for this is simple: If we can list the Queen Mother (Elizabeth Bowes Lyon) under her maiden name, then why shouldn't less famous individuals be listed equally? Actually, that's not my main reason; my main reason is continuity. (And I still think Elisabeth Austria should be under Elisabeth IN Bavaria, not of.) The Princess Marie of Edinburgh reference using preference was my fault and I've addressed this on her talk page; I don't want to cause any more redirects but she should be under Marie of Edinburgh. The trouble with Wiki re titles, like these, is that the rules are wildly inconsistent, which explains the endless arguing and discussions. If there was a simple rule people followed, that would make it easier. I understand that rules are made to be broken, but not on a daily, even hourly basis. My vote's for maiden names. Mowens35 07:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the Queen mum should be at Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, either. Only consorts actually referred to by their maiden names should be there, imo. john k 05:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow. That was her name before her marriage. Henry VIII's first wife was Catherine of Aragon before her marriage. What is the difference between putting George VI's queen back to what she was known to before her marriage, and putting Henry VIII's queen back to what she was known as before her marriage. If all of history does the latter, what is the problem with doing the former? FearÉIREANN 06:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Let me add that "Elizabeth in Bavaria" would be an utterly absurd title for an article. Elizabeth, Duchess in Bavaria would be okay, except that we're not supposed to include lesser titles in articles on queen-consorts. john k 05:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

On reigning queen consorts. I do think using in is, no pun intended, out. But I have regularly heard Sisi referred to as Elizabeth of Bavaria in conferences, etc by top academics. FearÉIREANN 06:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

At any rate, I'm not sure what the best way to do this is. If we abandon maiden names, we're moving into rather questionable territory, where there's no particularly obvious way to do it. But I think something better could be arrived at, if we put our minds to it. john k 05:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

But if we abandon maiden names, we would be the odd one out in the biographical world in not having Catherine of Modena, Catherine of Aragon, Mary of Teck, etc. It is a case of 'all or nothing' IMHO. FearÉIREANN 06:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Why in the world ought it be a case of all or nothing? Nothing else on wikipedia is. Of course we should still have Mary of Modena (I'm not sure who Catherine of Modena is), Catherine of Aragon, Mary of Teck, Ann Boleyn, and so forth, because that's how they're most commonly known. In other instances, it seems a lot less clear, and surely a policy could be constructed which would allow for all the people who are known by their maiden name are still at that location, but where we move people not known by it to better locations. I'd add that we're currently the odd one out in the biographical world by having articles at Alix of Hesse and Dagmar of Denmark. john k 13:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Dagmar of Denmark is an absurdity. Apparently she was never known by that name. She was Dagmar of Glucksburg before her Russian era.

I believe (that there's evidence that) Maria Feodorovna and Alexandra Feodorovna were baptized to, or otherwise taken to, the Orthodox communion (just) before their marriages, and in that way they were of those names before the actual marriage. I further have a belief that the Russian tsar or crown prince was not allowed to wed any other than an Orthodox (whatever recent the religious conversion...) The fact that their conversion and new name was because of the soon-to-be-happen marriage, is much irrelevant. Thus, in that sense, those were their pre-marital names. 62.78.104.14 14:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Those two women should be put here under Maria Fedorovna of Glucksburg and Alexandra Fedorovna of Hesse. 62.78.104.14 15:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

again, another hot contentious issue. i know Bavarian users will probably hate me for this, but i think it´s ludicrous to have Empress Elisabeth of Austria as Elizabeth in Bavaria, of Bavaria, Duchess in Bavaria or whatever. trust me, hardly anyone in the German-speaking area ever refers to her as Elisabeth von Bayern. she is always known either as Sisi or Kaiserin Elisabeth von Österreich. because she left when she was 16, and the rest of her life was always as an empress. similar case with Empress Eugenie (Eugenie de Montijo? i mean ok whatever.. but i´ve never heard French people referring to her as such in common parlance) and don´t even ask me what the maiden names of Kaiserin Augusta of Germany was.. because no one really knows, so why list it under some mysterious maiden-name?

another case of empress-consorts, I mean should we list Empress Michiko of Japan as Michiko Shoda?? even after her death, that would actually be incorrect, because official protocol will always refer to her as Empress Michiko (in Japan they would actually get another post-humous name, like Emperor Hirohito is now known as the Showa Emperor). once an empress/queen/whatever until their death, always an empress/queen...

i think it all boils down to again what do we do? be consistent and one size-fits-all, or use names that people are most familiar with? I can also see how using maiden-names for queens in the UK is maybe ok, but for Russia it just doesn´t work. my point again, to name it the way the Russians do it in that case, that would be more authentic... Antares911 00:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can see good arguments for making separate specific rules for the naming of consorts in particular countries. As long as it doesn't lead us back to the great "Queen Elizabeth" debate. Deb 11:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Titles of non-reigning Russian pretenders (Maria & Georgie)

A current pretenders to the Russian throne has her article at Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, while her son has his at Grand Duke George of Russia. Are these appropriate article titles? The latter, particularly, I think, is not correct. -- Nunh-huh 01:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the former is appropriate, so is the latter - even though George's father is a Prussian prince, because he is, under the Pauline laws (assuming that you view the marriage of his grandfather as valid under the Pauline laws, which many do not), the heir-apparent to the Russian throne due to the extinction of the Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp family in the male line, he would be a grand duke. Generally, I think that pretenders should get their title of pretention. Obviously it would be wrong to call Maria Maria I of Russia, but the title of pretension should, I think, be used. What else should we call them? I do think George should be at Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia, though, since there have been other, less dubious, grand duke georges (Nicholas II's brother, for instance, George Alexandrovich). john k 02:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's just it: George's "name" makes sense only in the fantasy world in which Maria is the actual ruler of Russia, as otherwise he would carry his father's name. - Nunh-huh 02:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, not true. He has his name because his mother is the pretender. it doesn't matter if she is actually empress. john k 02:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I guess I'm missing how that works. If she's not empress, why would he get her name? - Nunh-huh 04:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Generally, pretenders are treated kind of as monarchs in certain very specific ways, in terms of transmitting titles and so forth. Thus, because Maria is the pretender, it is as if George is the son of a reigning empress in terms of giving him the style of "Grand Duke." Maria is, at least in some eyes, head of the Imperial House of Russia. That makes her son a Grand Duke of Russia, just as Margrethe II's sons are princes of Denmark, or whatever. Obviously, she is not actually empress, but in this particular context, we treat her as though she is. It is also the case that George isn't known by anything else. He certainly isn't Georg Prinz von Preussen, which would be the name he would get from his father. john k 04:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That more or less confirms my impression: we're treating a pretender as if she were in actuality a fons honorum. That seems to me...not very wise, or very neutral, and perhaps actually misinformative. I don't know how consistent we are (I don't think the Count of Paris's children have articles, but if they did, would we use the titles granted by pretenders?). Anyway, I don't have a solution, but thought I'd rhrow the subject up for consideration. - Nunh-huh 16:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course we would use the titles for the children of the Comte de Paris. Those titles of pretension are recognized by the French government, I believe, and, at any rate, they are how these people are known. At any rate, a basic policy is to call people what they call themselves, unless there is a very strong reason not to. George is called "Grand Duke George of Russia," and not "Georg Prinz von Preussen." We are not suggesting that his mother is a fons honorum, just that she is treated as such by her own family, who thus take names on that basis. The only alternative would be for us to make up what we think are the "right" names for these people, which seems to me like a much worse way to proceed. john k 00:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, perhaps. But I do think we need to be quite clear, up front, in articles on pretenders that that is what they are. Our article on George begins "His Imperial Highness Tsarevich and Grand Duke Georgij Mikhailovitch of Russia, Georgij Mikhailovitch Romanov". It's a long long way from that to a description of what he actually is. - Nunh-huh 01:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, that is problematic. john k 20:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gustav II Adolph of Sweden

There is a WP:RM debate going on on what to name this chap who is often in English refered to as Gustavus Adolphus. I think that it would be a good idea if people who read this page had a look at the second vote on Talk:Gustav II Adolph of Sweden and put in their 2 pence worth in, otherwise the choice may have little to do with the standards worked out on this page and everything to do with the opinions of those who happen to be looking at WP:RM this week. Philip Baird Shearer 00:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Harry) Lee Kuan Yew

I have a big problem here. Please see Talk:Lee Kuan Yew if anybody is interested.

Mr Tan 16:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Royal Consorts

What is the rule for a Royal Consort who dies before the monarch? Does their title change before the monarch dies or on the death of the monarch does their title change to that of a Previous Royal Consort? The wording on the page is not clear.

Although not directly relevent, at the moment this is being discussed on Talk:Marie Antoinette as it has been proposed to change the page name to "Maria Antonia, Archduchess of Austria". Philip Baird Shearer 19:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The current rule is a bit of a mess. We should really decide these on a country-by-country basis. (I'd say Marie Antoinette should be at Marie Antoinette of France or Marie-Antoinette of France.) Proteus (Talk) 20:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At Antares' invitation, my comment: Setting "standards" for a global project should be universal, and localizing the notion of "standards" to small areas makes for relativist policy. That said, this topic is for the most part trivial, and whats left is a simple choice between 'Set no standards,' hence allow each to their own, or 'set universal standards,' meaning some are going to be overrun. There is no "standard" which defaults to country or society, though an allowance for specific systematic exeptions and caveats is reasonable. -SV|t 23:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How can standards for naming be universal, when different places have different conventions in this matter? john k 00:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to contribute to this topic Antares911. My understanding would be that some rigid, standardised rule would not actually help improve the obvious shortcoming (have often mused over the subject myself!), I would suggest to find a DISAMBIGUATION PAGE solution of some sort. This would allow a more general approach in searching for a particular personage. As a rule, however, NAMES should precede titles (Example: Marie Antoinette, Queen of France, born Archduchess of Austria. d. : Erzherzogin von Öesterreich. etc). STYLES should never be used in direct connection with the NAME. It sounds terribly silly and sycophantic to list a monarch, here, as HIM or HM, as we are referring to encyclopedic entries, that are not in particular need of imperial/royal court protocol!--Pantherarosa 00:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

here are some of my ideas:

1. If a person is best known by a cognomen, or by a name that doesn't exactly fit the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion. However, if the anglisised form is antiquated, then use the form that is used most often in the native country. So for example, it is not Mutsuhito or Emperor Mutsuhito of Japan, but Meiji Emperor. Same goes for Genghis Khan and not Temüjin or even Genghis (Khan being his title, not his last name).
2. Past Royal Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title, not by their consort name, as without an ordinal (which they lack) it is difficult to distinguish various consorts; eg, as there have been many queen consorts called Catherine, use Catherine of Aragon not Queen Catherine. However, there have been notable exceptions. From Wikipedia: "Shortly after King George VI died of lung cancer, on February 6, 1952, Elizabeth began to be styled "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother." This style was adopted because the normal style for the widow of a King, "Queen Elizabeth," would have been too similar to the style of her elder daughter, now Queen Elizabeth II. The alternative style "The Queen Dowager" could not be used because a senior widowed Queen, Queen Mary, the widow of King George V, was still alive." Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester will not be listed as Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott, since that would overtly complicate a search and identification. In these cases, use the name that they have been most commonly known under. Queen Marie Antoinette of France will not be listed under Maria Antonia, Archduchess of Austria, or Elisabeth, Empress of Austria. One size does not fit all: In case of doubt, use the name and title at the time of their passing, and/or that the person was most known under.
3. Existing Royal Consorts are referred to by their consort name, eg. Queen Sofia of Spain.
4. Use the most senior title received by a royal personage. For example, George V of the United Kingdom is referred to as such, not George, Duke of York or George, Prince of Wales, his earlier titles.
5. Non-European Royal Consorts are referred to by their full title, not by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title. It is therefore Empress Michiko of Japan and not Michiko Shoda, as well as Queen Sirikit of Thailand and not Sirikit Kitiyakara, Empress Myeongseong of Korea, Empress Dowager Ci Xi, Empress Dowager Teimei, etc.
6. Non-European Royalty such as crown princes, princesses, etc. shall be listed with their full titles. Use "first name, Prince/ss of ..." where they have a territorial suffix by virtue of their parent's or spouse´s title, eg, Masako, Crown Princess of Japan, Eun, Crown Prince of Korea. In case there is still doubt, use the title that diplomatic protocol officialy uses. For example it is not Princess Kiko, but Kiko, Princess Akishino of Japan. For historic persons, use the title that they have been most known under. It is not Gong or Gong (prince), but Prince Gong, as well as 2nd Prince Chun and not Chun or Chun (prince).

---

can we agree on this? Antares911 23:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Genghis Khan is obviously right, and I'm deeply confused about what any of this has to do with anglicized names being obsolete
2. I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. I agree that the current rule is not very good. But I'm not sure what you're suggesting.
3. This seems okay to me, but a bit odd, perhaps to have Juan Carlos I of Spain and Queen Sofia of Spain.
4. Obviously (this isn't a change, is it?)
5. This seems good - although why Empress Dowager, rather than Empress?
6. Why Masako, Crown Princess of Japan rather than Crown Princess Masako of Japan?

Over all, I'm confused as to what you have put above is new, and what changes you are proposing. Could you specifically say what the changes are, rather than presenting a large block of text including the old stuff? john k 00:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hi John, well it is confusing I agree, those were just some thoughts i jotted down. for example, apparently we are not allowed to use titles for the names.

1. well in that case, Genghis Khan needs to be listed as Genghis, Khan not beeing his last name but his title.

   He certainly does not. There is no rule that commas have to be used for titles, and there shouldn't be, since in many cases commas are not used. john k 00:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2. ok, so Queen Sofia of Spain is listed this way at the moment, fine. then why is it Sirikit Kitiyakara and not Queen Sirikit of Thailand. next question, then why is the Thai King not listed as King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand?

   Fine with me to have Queen Sirikit of Thailand. We do not include "King" or "Queen" in articles on reigning monarchs, and I see no reason why we should. If we had to do it, I'd much prefer the form Bhumibol Adulyadej, King of Thailand (or Henry II, King of England). john k 00:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3. concerning queen consorts and empress consorts, i see huge problems with this. it makes no sense to name an article Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon when no one knows her under this name, or very little people. agreed? so she was made into an exception. ok. but all other queen consorts under current rules have to be named by their maiden name. excuse me, but how is this supposed to work with Marie Antoinette. bet you a million that nobody knows who Archduchess Maria Antonia of Austria was. so pragmatism needs to rule here, not this one-size-fits-all approach, it simply won´t work anyone can see that. i´m asking users to see that we have to be a bit more flexible than this dogmatic approach which is just creating confusion and frustration.

   As I pointed out before "Archduchess Maria Antonia of Austria" would not be the title under current rules, since we don't include titles (like Archduchess) in the names of consorts. Marie Antoinette of Austria would follow the rules and be just fine as a title, it seems to me. At any rate, I agree that pragmatism would be good. But in some cases it's completely confusing. Is the royal consort of Frederick IX of Denmark better known as Ingrid of Sweden or Ingrid of Denmark? This is rather hard to figure out - there ought to be at least some default mode here. john k 00:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

4. ahm about Empress Dowager, i dunno. apparently that was their official title. you can look it up under that article and see what the difference is between that and a normal Empress. article headings need to reflect that difference though.

   Fair enough. john k 00:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

5. no, no change. but it hasn´t been codified anywhere yet. so we agree that Empress Michiko of Japan is fine then? good.

   That seems okay to me. john k 00:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

6. at the moment, Crown Prince and Crown Princesses are named with their names first. i have absolutely no problems with the approach you have been suggesting as well, by putting Crown Princess Masako of Japan. it cannot however be Masako of Japan or whatever, or even better Ubol Ratana, since there are multiple princesses.

   Ubol Ratana? At any rate, whatever here. john k 00:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Compromise solution. how about this: can we say, that british royal consorts will be listed under their maiden names, however non-british consorts (including empresses) by the title they carried? Bhinneka 12:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Except that non-British consorts also revert to maiden name or title when they die. So to follow that rule would be to abandon world usage on the false premise that only British royal consorts revert to previous name/title when they die. For example, there are numerous historical and internet references to Dagmar of Denmark, the wife of Tsar of Alexander III of Russia.

A page of influential women in Swedish history speaks of the following Danish queens. Note that they are referred to by maiden title.

• 1259-66 Regent Dowager Queen Margrethe Sambiria Sprænghest
• 1286-92 Regent Dowager Queen Agnes af Brandenburg
• 1376-87 Regent Queen Margrethe I Valdemarsdatter
• 1814-15 Regent Queen Marie Sofie Frederikke zu Hessen-Kassel
• 1972-2000 Co-Deputy Head of State Queen Ingrid of Sweden

The same is true with French consorts, for example Blanche of Castille (1188-1252), not Queen Blanche of France. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 20:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You'll find that we have lots of disambiguation pages, eg. Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth. However, every article that is about an individual must have a unique title, otherwise it cannot be found. This is why reference publications, like libraries and all other types of data store, have standardised rules for the way they name their entries. Deb 19:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hi FearÉIREANN i mean i really appreciate your input, but could you please maybe express yourself more to the point, and not repeat the same comments on each question, it makes reading a bit difficult in the end.

I agree with john k that what you suggested that ALL former queen consorts return to their maiden name is simply not true, also not in Asia. that might be true for british ones, but not for others, sorry. I looked up how other encyclopedias do this, and it seems that british ones are listed under their maiden names, but not necessarily someone like "Alix of Hesse", or "Marie Antoinette", or the current "Sirikit Kitiyakara". that´s why the compromise solution is the best thing I think. honestly, who in the english-speaking world (or even the German or Russian one) knows about "Alix of Hesse"? I therefore concur that British Queen Subjects can be listed by their maiden names, but non-british but what they were most known as for example "Empress Maria Feodorovna". someone like "Catherine II" the Great can stay like that. User:antares911

But Maria Feodorovna and Catherine II are two completely different types of monarch, one regnant, one consort. Your whole proposal seems to be based on a complete lack of understanding of the distinction, and of a lack of understanding of standard royal nomenclature. You cannot apply regnant terminology to consorts. You don't seem to grasp that it cannot be used because, as every sourcebook knows, consort titles lack the disambigulation references that are vital in royal naming. You cannot simply have an encylopaedia full of numerous Queen Marys, Queen Elizabeths, etc. It does not work and is not an option. There is no logical reason why Wikipedia should use amateurish naming attempts that would simply reduce consort titles to a mess and make itself a laughing stock. Russian consorts, for specific reasons, do have disambigution potential. The overwhelming majority of consorts do not. So using consort titles is simply not an option in all but a tiny number of cases.

That is why consorts from Blanche of Castille (wife of Louis VIII of France) to Auguste Viktoria, Duchess of Schleswig-Holstein (wife of Wilhelm II of Germany), Marie de Guise (wife of James V of Scotland) to Mary of Teck are known as that, not Queen Blanche, Empress Auguste Victoria, Queen Marie and Queen Mary. And it is why Francis II of Austria was married four times to Elizabeth of Württemberg, Maria Theresa of the Two Sicilies, Maria Ludovika of Austria-Este and Maria Beatrice d'Este Princess of Modena. It is why Frederick Augustus II of Saxony is described as being married to Caroline of Austria, why Napoleon is described as being married to Josephine de Beauharnais and Marie Louise of Austria, why King Charles X of France is described as being married to Marie-Thérèse de Savoie, not Queen Marie-Thérèse, why Louis VI is described as being married to Adélaide de Maurienne, why William III of the Netherlands is described as being married to Princess Adelheid Emma Wilhelmina Theresia of Waldeck and Pyrmont, why French king Henry I is described as being married to Anne of Kiev, why Gustav III's wife is described as Sofia Magdalena of Denmark, why King Umberto II of Italy is said to have been married to Marie José of Belgium, why Manuel I of Portugal was married to Eleonore of Austria, who later married Francois I of France. And that is why history books record that Henry VIII was married to Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr, not Queen Catherine, Queen Anne, Queen Jane, Queen Anne, Queen Catherine and Queen Catherine. And why history books say that George V was married to Mary of Teck, not Queen Mary, and why they say that George VI was married to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, not Queen Elizabeth.

Unless you want Wikipedia to be almost unique and to make an absolute fool of itself by confusing readers with Queen Mary (the 'one who was the daughter of Henry VIII, as they might say in Friends), Queen Mary (the one who was married to William III), Queen Mary (the one who was married to James II) and Queen Mary (the one who was married to George V), not to mention confusing everyone with Queen Elizabeth and her daughter Queen Elizabeth, as well as the Spanish Queen Elizabeth, the Balkan Queen Elizabeth, and Portugal's Queen Elizabeth, as well as having to rewrite thousands of links on Wikipedia, using the standard consort nomenclature of maiden name/title is the professional and normal way to write royal articles. You have given no reason why everyone else is wrong and calling people by their consort name is right, except to say that you personally don't recognise the identities of the people and therefore standard internationally used nomenclatures should be abandoned for one that will not work. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 19:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quit creating straw men. There is a middle ground between never using the maiden name and always using it. British and French monarchs should, I think, always use the maiden name (although I'm still not convinced about "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon"). But one can hold to that position while still thinking that perhaps this is not the case with all consorts. And the whole "Wikipedia will be an international laughing stock" business is silly. john k 21:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above list (and it is only the tip of the iceberg) mentions England, Scotland, France, Austria, Württemberg, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, Saxony, Kingdom of Savoy, the Netherlands, Kiev, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, Spain, etc. I've looked up lists of consorts and out of 118 found 6 that are referred to, sometimes by their consort names (and one of those, a queen consort of Portugal, is only referred to as Portugal because she is a Roman Catholic saint identified with Portugal). From Greece where the queens consort of Kings Constantine I and Paul were Olga Konstantinova of Russia and Frederica of Hanover respectively to queens consort of Spain, like Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg and Maria Christina of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, or queens of Portugal like Carlota Joaquina Teresa of Spain, Maria Pia of Savoy and Amélie of Orléans, to consorts in France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, all the German states, all the Italian states, Austria, Bohemia and further afield, the use of the maiden name/title and not the consort names is not merely standard but automatic, with a tiny number of individual exceptions (and even on occasions where some consorts for unique reasons, such as their canonisation, is known by consort title, many people still call them by maiden name/title). The only half-exceptions are Russian consorts, and even there many call them by maiden title. So not to use that on wikipedia would involve quite literally been the odd one out in sourcebooks.

And yes, it would make Wikipedia a laughing stock among researchers, whose first response on seeing Wikipedia, practically alone, calling people Queen X, would be to wonder how an encyclopædia was so misinformed as to the standard nomenclature to use for deceased consorts. BTW late last year when I was preparing a paper on the British monarch I asked a senior academic who writes a lot about it, what was the right way to refer to the late queen mother. He was quite blunt. I quote him:

"As Diana Spencer found on her divorce, consort titles are not the property of the person holding one, but by virtue of their marriage to a monarch or relationship to a monarch, and so changes constantly. Unless the paper you are writing is focused exclusively on the lady as queen mother, she should no longer be referred to as such after her death. Nor was she "Queen Elizabeth" from the moment of her husband's death. The standard academic approach, from the moment a consort or former consort dies, is to use their pre-marital name or pre-marital title. So if you are dealing with her outside specific years where she had a title, the overall name to use would be "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon", just as we use "Alexandra of Denmark", "Mary of Teck" and "Wallis Simpon". A minority of experts give a three to five year break between the death of someone and their reversion to a pre-marital name but most I know, and most academic publishers, think the change should place immediately. After all, from the moment she died she did become a historical figure, so standard methodology for naming royal consorts should apply. I know that is the view of my publishers. I hope that helps you."

Maybe it was justifiable to keep EBL at QE the QM for a year or two, at the very very most up to five years. But certainly, now that she is 8 years dead Diana should be at LDS or DS, not at D, PoW, especially as there is legally another Princess of Wales now, even if she does not call herself that. She is now so long dead that there may be young people reading articles here who don't remember her and for whom she is just as much an anonymous name from the past as is Pope Paul VI, Franklin Roosevelt or George V. (I knew I was getting old when recently the son of a friend of mine, who is nine, asked me about controversial Irish taoiseach Charles Haughey and for whom Diana meant nothing. And in a couple of years time Wikipedia will have readers who will not remember the 'Queen Mother' just as for most today 'Queen Mary', 'Pope Pius' and 'President Eisenhower' mean absolutely nothing. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 22:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Antares, F.Eire and John, I hope you realized that you are writing these under the subtitle "other non-royal names"...

oops. :-) FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 22:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jtdirl - what lists, precisely, are you referring to? And the laughingstock thing is stupid - even if it's true, you have no evidence for it, and it is not an argument for anything. At any rate, I agree with you that for most European countries, the maiden name tends to be used. This is clearly not true for Russia, though, mostly because the first names are often changed as well (although not always, as Marie of Hesse and by Rhine.) But certainly all the other empresses of Russia (beyond Catherine, who has the special case of being both a consort and a regnant monarch) changed their names, and are better known by their later name. Specifically, Sophie Marie Dorothea of Württemberg, Princess Maria Louisa of Baden (clearly at the wrong place, in any case), Charlotte of Prussia, Dagmar of Denmark, and Alix of Hesse, are never referred to by these names, and you would be hard-pressed to find such references. In these cases, I would suggest that we just use their Russian name, i.e. Empress Marie Feodorovna of Russia, Empress Elizabeth Alexeyevna of Russia, Empress Alexandra Feodorovna of Russia, Empress Marie Alexandrovna of Russia - but then we get to a problem, in that we get repetitions of Marie Feodorovna and Alexandra Feodorovna. I would suggest, then, a bastardized hybrid version - Marie Feodorovna of Württemberg, Elizabeth Alexeyvna of Baden, Alexandra Feodorovna of Prussia, and so forth...not perfect, but at least unique. For non-western monarchs, I see no reason to follow the maiden name rule at all, as this does not seem to be the standard at all. john k 23:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let me add that the convention of using maiden names becomes more awkward at the present time, as fewer and fewer monarchical consorts come from royal families themselves. Are we really going to have to have articles in the future at Camilla Shand and Paola Ruffo di Calabria? john k 23:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think insofar as possible we should avoid making up names for people that were never actually used. Perhaps it would be best to disambiguate by dates: Empress Marie Feodorovna of Russia (1759-1828) and Empress Marie Feodorovna of Russia (1847-1928). Or Empress Marie Feodorovna of Russia, formerly Sophie Marie Dorothea of Württemberg, Empress Marie Feodorovna of Russia, formerly Princess Dagmar of Denmark. Though I'd prefer the dates: we need to keep things simple, and the further away we get from names that people actually use, the further away we get from an ideal system. - Nunh-huh 00:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A couple of points:

• I have no problem with using consort names for Russian royalty. The only problem is that (a) some of the ladies in question are also known by means of their maiden name/title. Indeed, from reading history books I'd recognise Alix of Hesse and Dagmar of Denmark far more quickly than I would their Russian consort names; (b) there are disambigulation issues that arise. We do however need to be careful, as Nunh says, to avoid making up names. People do have to be able to find recognisable names here, and our own made-up names would make that difficult.

• The issue of non-European consorts would be solved by applying Wikipedia rules, namely how do English speakers refer to such consorts? If Europeans apply the maiden name rule and so know people by such, then we should follow it. If they don't and known them by the name they are known as in the native culture they should follow that.

• The overwhelming evidence is that practically all European consorts are known by pre-marital name, so that should be followed, hence Mary of Teck not Queen Mary, etc.

• As to modern consorts, we have examples of commoner consorts of monarchs or ex-consorts and the rule does indeed seem to be a reversion to pre-marital name. That is, after all, how people refer to ordinary people in many cases. When talking about family history one doesn't say "Michael Lynch married Mary Lynch" but "Michael Lynch married Mary Whyte" because if one uses the former it does not clarify whether Mary's maiden name was Lynch or not, so it does not convey any information. One may know that after the marriage that she called herself Lynch (through it isn't automatic) but the key question in analysing family is 'who was she before she married?'

Similarly one doesn't say 'The Duke of Windsor married the Duchess of Windsor' but 'the Duke of Windsor married Wallis Simpson', or to use the full implicit part of the sentence, 'The Duke of Windsor married Wallis Simpson who became the Duchess of Windsor.' The only complicating factor is whether one goes right back to their original name (the "maiden name"), or uses the one directly before the marriage (the "pre-marital name". So does one say Wallis Simpson or Wallace Warfield? (Some historians get around this by saying Wallis Warfield Simpson - or if they want to be really petantic Wallis Warfield Spencer Simpson!) It will be up to history to decide, after death, whether they say The Prince of Wales married Camilla Shand or The Prince of Wales married Camilla Parker Bowles. (Or even, God forbid, The Prince of Wales married Camilla Shand Parker Bowles!!!) Similarly after his death, will Prince Philip revert to being his first name/title, Prince Philip of Greece since he wasn't that anymore when he married, or will he be referred to as Philip Mountbatten? But to answer John's point, yes Wikipedia like other sourcebooks will do doubt say Paola Ruffo di Calabria because that was the name of the person who married the future King Albert. Using a pre-marital name separates the position they held from who they were, and allows the person and not just the position to be known. So Prince Philip of Greece tells us where he came from (with all the cultural information implicit in it. Similarly Mary of Teck, Anne of Cleves, Mia Pia of Savoy, Blanche of Castille or either Camilla Parker Bowles or the less likely to be used Camilla Shand gives more information than using a marital name. Ditto with Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, which gives us a human context on the woman who at various stages in her life was Duchess of York, Queen and Queen Mother, than merely referring to her in a marital or post-marital context, which by definition would put the title ahead of the Scottish woman who had the title. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 01:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jtd - obviously, in certain contexts, the maiden name or premarital name is obviously used. But in most contexts - whether the person is dead or not - it is not. Whether or not we say "Michael Lynch married Mary Lynch," we certainly call her "Mary Lynch" for the time when she was married. And for articles on non-royalty we certainly use the married name. Margaret Thatcher, for instance. As to Russians, I have no idea where you are coming from saying that calling her Dagmar is more common than calling her Marie Feodorovna. The only time I have ever seen her referred to as Dagmar is in genealogical sources. Nunh-huh's suggestion for Russian consorts makes sense to me, I will add. john k 08:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. If a person is best known by a cognomen, or by a name that doesn't exactly fit the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion. However, if the anglisised form is antiquated, then use the form that is used most often in the native country. So for example, it is not Mutsuhito or Emperor Mutsuhito of Japan, but Meiji Emperor. Same goes for Genghis Khan and not Temüjin or even Genghis (Khan being his title, not his last name).

Simplicity could be nice. How about Genghis?? Of European monarchs who had ordinal, I recommend such use. E.g Louis I, Holy Roman Emperor 217.140.193.123 18:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Past Royal Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title, not by their consort name, as without an ordinal (which they lack) it is difficult to distinguish various consorts; eg, as there have been many queen consorts called Catherine, use Catherine of Aragon not Queen Catherine. However, there have been notable exceptions. From Wikipedia: "Shortly after King George VI died of lung cancer, on February 6, 1952, Elizabeth began to be styled "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother." This style was adopted because the normal style for the widow of a King, "Queen Elizabeth," would have been too similar to the style of her elder daughter, now Queen Elizabeth II. The alternative style "The Queen Dowager" could not be used because a senior widowed Queen, Queen Mary, the widow of King George V, was still alive." Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester will not be listed as Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott, since that would overtly complicate a search and identification. In these cases, use the name that they have been most commonly known under. Queen Marie Antoinette of France will not be listed under Maria Antonia, Archduchess of Austria, or Elisabeth, Empress of Austria. One size does not fit all: In case of doubt, use the name and title at the time of their passing, and/or that the person was most known under.

I prefer pre-marital name for those who were royals themselves. Thus, they are not taken from the connotation. But with noblewomen and commoners being famous just because of royal marriage, reverting to maiden name is lame. Their live as royals should be shown in the article title. 217.140.193.123 18:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Therefore, NOT Diana Spencer, but something more royal, for example the same as if she were a peeress consort Diana, Princess of Wales. NOT Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, but e.g Elizabeth, Queen Mother. NOT Fabiola de Mora y Aragon but Fabiola, Queen of Belgium. NOT Silvia Sommerlath, but Silvia, Queen of Sweden (so after her death). not Natalia Kesko but Natalia, Queen of Serbia. not Maria Casimira de la Grange d'Arquien but Maria Casimira, Queen of Poland. However, very careful to whom this rule is given. Not to Anne Boleyn nor Catherine Parr (as history already has given the royal connotation to their names). This rule COULD apply to Empress Sisi, as her title Herzogin in Bayern was not actually royal, but only aristoratic (of highest level).

• Thus, my suggestion as additional rule re consorts of monarchs: if the consort was pre-maritally not at the monarchical level, her (his) article shall be named as if she (he) was a consort of a peer, using the monarch's usual title as such. All those whose pre-marital name could be written as "of somecountry", are regarded to be at monarchical level. Those consorts whose maiden names have lived in history literature well enough to express their royal status, use pre-marital surnames. 217.140.193.123 19:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Existing Royal Consorts are referred to by their consort name, eg. Queen Sofia of Spain.

Until she dies. That condition should be added. 217.140.193.123 18:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of the Russian empresses: I recommend Maria Fedorovna of Glucksburg (and a redirect from Empress Maria Fedorovna), as well as Alexandra Fedorovna of Hesse (and a redirect from Empress Alexandra Fedorovna).

Queen Sirikit of Thailand and not Sirikit Kitiyakara

How about simply Sirikit??

not Princess Kiko, but Kiko, Princess Akishino of Japan

This is good formulation. Have you actually realized that Akishino is not her husband's personal name, but a title. Even "of Japan" could be taken away. Thus, this parallels with "Isabella, Duchess of Anjou". Try Kiko, Princess Akishino 217.140.193.123 18:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the European usage of pre-marital name for queens who were princesses of another place, came from the countries themselves, where they were consorts. I can see a French of late 17th century call the late queen-consort as Anne of Austria - actually, I can see a French teacher in school during the same decade tell about the reigning king having married Mary Theresa of Spain.

For Russians, their empresses could have been name´patronymic of theplaceshewasprincessof. Maria Fedorovna of Wurttemberg, Elisabeth Alexeyevna of Baden, Alexandra Fedorovna of Prussia, Maria Alexandrovna of Hesse, Maria Fedorovna of Glucksburg, Alexandra Fedorovna of Hesse.

Males who married, are probably always exceptions. For Philip, I expect history call him Philip, Duke of Edinburgh - which also is the application of peerage name to him. 217.140.193.123 19:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Princess Dagmar was "HRH Princess Dagmar of Denmark" at the time of her marriage - she was not "HH Princess Dagmar of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg," a title which she had ceased to use, I think, in 1851, when her father was declared heir-presumptive to the Danish throne and made a Prince of Denmark. Otherwise, I have no problem with your suggestion for Russian monarchs. As to Anne of Austria and Marie Thérèse of Spain, I think you'll find that it is rather unlikely that the same person would have used both those names. Both Anne and Marie Thérèse were Spanish infantas. Due to the fact of the Habsburgs (called in Spain and France the "House of Austria") being the rulers of Spain, she was known as "Anne of Austria." Her niece and daughter-in-law was also "Marie Therese of Austria." Now, the use of Austria is confusing for Spanish infantas, so we change it for the little known Marie Therese. Anne of Austria, though, is so well known that we can't change it to "Anne of Spain." john k 20:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's why I attributed those to mouths of two different Frenchmen.

Did you not know that Christian IX did not become Heir Presumptive of Denmark in 1851, as the heir presumptive was, for the next 12 years, Ferdinand of Denmark ??? As Christian and his issue officially were of a by-branch of the house until his accession, they used the name of S-H-S-G until that. According to Danish records. Parallel with the practice of, say, Princess Beatrice of York, or Prince Michael of Kent. Christian had an additional, personal title "Hereditary Prince of Denmark" beginning from his grafting to legislated succession, as had his sons. 217.140.193.123 21:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, you are right about Prince Ferdinand being heir presumptive. I am nevertheless fairly sure that Christian's family used "Prince of Denmark" rather than S-H-S-G after 1851. At any rate, Dagmar married Alexander in 1866, three years after her father's accession to the throne, meaning she would have been "Princess Dagmar of Denmark" for at least three years prior to her marriage. Queen Alexandra was certainly known as "Alexandra of Denmark" in spite of the fact that she married the Prince of Wales some months before her father became King... john k 22:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For instance, the NY Times, which is, unfortunately, the only newspaper from 1863 I can seem to find online, calls Alexandra "Her Royal Highness the Princess Alexandra." The "Her Royal Highness" suggests that she was styled as a Princess of Denmark rather than as a Princess of S-H-S-G. john k 22:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think I read that Maria married quite young, a couple of months after Alexandra had married. Are you certain that Chris9 had ascended before Maria's marriage?

My interpretation of NY Times is that (the newspaper of course received its material from court or court correspondent) the writer of the then "press release" did not want to go in the vexing question whether A was Denmark or something else, and left the "of" designation out. That omission even strengthens the argument that they were S-H-S-G at that time. HRH does not mean that they had got "Denmark" as official title. HRH probably was a style specifically given to the family, as the king was expecting them to be monarchs of Denmark in the future (such was possible and done, compare e.g Ed7 giving HRH to children of Duchess of Fife). I know for a fact that Louise's and Christian's sons received the title "Hereditary Prince of Denmark" before their father's accession, but these daughters never received it, as the succession was changed into only Salic (semi-s was clipped away) and girls will thus not be heirs.

I prefer, literally, the pre-marital instead of birth name, for certain pragmatic reasons. Although it does not fit well to individuals who had earned a new name by prior marriage - pr-marital has two interpretations in that case, think Wallis Simpson. For Russian consorts, they were usually converted to orth and new name before marriage, this is a good practical solution for pre-marital. 217.140.193.123 11:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, the rules we need to be clearcut and easy to use. I see no justification whatsoever for not the maiden name/premarital name for onetime consorts in all but a tiny minority of cases, perhaps Russian and eastern royalty. So of course the late Princess of Wales should be a Diana Spencer nearly a decade after her death. We can't call her POW. D POW was just her title at the end of her life. "Princess Diana" was a made up title that never existed. Her personal name was Diana Spencer, then Diana Mountbatten-Windsor. The standard usage would dictate that she should be at Diana Spencer, or Lady Diana Spencer, which is where The Biography Channel, the Scottish Royal Archives, CBS News and numerous other professional source books place her. One encyclopaedia that doesn't is planning to move her from D POW to LDS in its next hardback edition, believing that enough time has elapsed to move her to what they call her "correct name". (I do some research for them and did some work some months ago for the updated article.) They have not decided yet whether to move the Queen Mother to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon now in their next hard print run, in their internet edition, or leave the change until the following edition, but she is being moved automatically at some stage. So it would be crazy to use non-standard nomenclature to refer to consorts when we have put so much effort into trying to get other bits of the pages on royalty right and remove all the ridiculous names that used to be a feature of Wikipedia until 2 years ago. Either we are a serious encyclopaedia following series biographical standards or we are not. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 22:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Diana was not a consort - I don't see how that follows. She was a peeress, and her style of Diana, Princess of Wales is that of a divorced consort peeress. Should we move all deceased peeresses to their maiden names, as well? Lady Georgiana Spencer, for instance? john k 22:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other non-royal names

1. Non-english nobility can be listed under the english-language name that most would be familiar with. However, if a translation is difficult, or the person is known more under their native name, the name and the title can be kept in the original language. Henri, Comte de Paris, Duc de France, Charles-Louis-Victor, prince de Broglie is fine, as well as Carl Ritter von Ghega and not Charles, Knight of Ghega, or Otto Graf Lambsdorff and not Count Otto Lambsdorff. Names should have their preposition in them in order to be fully accurate ("de, "von", "du", etc.) as well as their title if possible. French noble titles are always written in small letters, German-language titles are written in capital letters.

Antares911 23:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• This proposal is mostly good, although I wish the goodlines would be a bit clearer. Also, it doesn't get to the issue of whether or not French titles should be capitalized in article titles, which has been a source of some confusion heretofore - I'd like any proposal on this subject to deal with that question. john k 00:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

sorry Jtdirl, but you need to elaborate a bit more on your issues instead of simply vetoing. John Kenney, as far as i know, the titles in France are written in small letter, so it´s "comte de", "marquis de" etc... while in the german-speaking world, nouns including titles are always capitalised. wonder how it is in Spain and so? ok good, so at least we can agree on this.

In French they are not capitalized. That does not mean that we shouldn't capitalize them in the titles of articles on the English wikipedia (and in various articles we have). A separate issue is the question of ordinals for nobles. Should it be "1st duc de" or "1er duc de"? john k 00:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

we can capitalise the english language version, such as (Henri, Count of Paris), but i don´t think (Henri, Comte de Paris) is a good idea, better keep it (Henri, comte de Paris), if that is simply how the french do it. about the ordinals, i would favour the "1er duc de", otherwise in english we can have the "1st Duke of".... but not a mixture of both. would "1er duc de" be actually so hard to understand? user:antares911

I think this would be fine, but there was some opposition when it's been suggested before. john k 23:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mainly from me, I believe. It's sometimes hard for people like us to imagine the "ordinary" reader, but I'd imagine that most people reading Wikipedia are not familiar with conventions regarding the French nobility. Most English speakers would just look at "1er duc de" with bewilderment. And the lack of capitalisation of titles may be a standard in certain circles, but it's hardly universal. (As I believe I pointed out last time we did this, the French Embassy in the United States calls the Marquis de La Fayette "Marie Joseph Paul Motier, Marquis de La Fayette".) Proteus (Talk) 23:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's fine with me to do it that way, too. I don't particularly care what standard is used, so long as we can agree on something. I would suggest that in the case of most French nobility, we probably don't need, and perhaps shouldn't have, an ordinal. john k 00:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hm, ok so let´s say we use "1st duc de ", would that be more acceptable? about the "Marquis de La Fayette", again all nouns in french are always written with small letters. Maybe the french embassy wrote it that way to make it easier for english-speaking users? We can also have it in capitalised, but i thought maybe bringing in some clarity would be better, that´s why i proposed writing the titles in small letters. in endeffect, it´s the same thing, don´t you agree? Antares911 28 June 2005 23:01 (UTC)

I was doing it offline! :-) Explanation below. The last proposal has some merit, except that there is the problem of whether to use upper or lower casing. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk)

Re-the royal names proposals:

• In case of doubt, use the name and title at the time of their passing, and/or that the person was most known under - Um. Lets see. That would give us articles on Queen Mary (daughter of Henry VIII), Queen Mary (daughter of James II), Queen Mary (wife of James II) and . . . em . . . Queen Mary (wife of George V). And that is not counting the other Queen Marys worldwide. It is totally unworkable. To avoid chaos like that, historians follow a simple rule - once they are dead they revert to maiden name. Hence Catherine of Aragon, not Queen Catherine. And Catherine Howard, not Queen Catherine, and Catherine Parr, not . . .you guessed it, Queen Catherine. So you tell the Marys but using ordinals (numbers) for queens regnant, and maiden names for the others, namely Mary of Modena and Mary of Teck. Anyone with a slight interest in British monarchy will know who Mary of Teck is. If they don't, we can set up redirect pages.

The only complexity is the tiny number of royals who, for unique reasons are known usually for the manner of their life or death - hence Marie Antoinette. Every rule in practice will have one or two exceptions. In the case of consort naming, the exceptions are minimal. And it would be ludicrous to abandon a system used successfully worldwide by people writing about monarchy, history, titles, etc and move to a mess of a system where you could not tell Queen Elizabeth (Elizabeth of York from Queen Elizabeth (Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon).

The only issue is whether to move people on death straight to the maiden name version, or delay, and if so for how long. The late Princess of Wales is already been written about as Lady Diana Spencer (or by some people who don't know that it never was her title, as Princes Diana, a version Wikipedia cannot use as it was in reality a non-existent name, as Diana never tired to telling people who kept calling her that).

"Princes Diana" - Did people really call her that? It seems unlikely, though I'll readily agree that it's a non-existent name. Pete 02:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Even people who can't spell "Princess" are entitled to an opinion. Deb 20:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course! You don't begrudge me my little smile, surely? Even Jimmy isn't immune to mistakes, as I'm sure he's the first to admit. Pete 21:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

People puzzled by that last comment might be interested to know that Pete is a rather notorious stalker who mounts personal campaigns of abuse against other wikipedians on and off wikipedia who would not tolerate his bullying behaviour. He has so far driven one Wikipedian from Wikipedia and stalked others, including me, writing abuse comments on pages they contribute to or are associate with, and proposing phoney Votes for deletion on pages his targets have an association with. His case is currently before the Arbitration Committee, where his conduct even before his stalking was about to earn him a 1 year ban from certain pages. You can read more details about this individual (and how to join the queue to become the latest person he stalks!!!) here (Look under User:Skyring). [2]. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 00:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Existing Royal Consorts are referred to by their consort name, eg. Queen Sofia of Spain. Why? How then would you cover someone who was both a Queen and an Empress? Would Mary of Teck have to be Empress Queen Mary?

ÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 23:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

sorry, but i really have no clue who "Mary of Teck" would be. if you talk to me about her, i wouldn´t be saying "ah of course, Mary of Teck i know who are you talking about..." and i´m sure many others wouldn´t either. and i am not completely blassé about the british monarchy either. if you said "Queen Mary" i would be like of course! you cannot assume that every person who uses Wikipedia immedately knows about this. is Wikipedia for everyone, or just for the experts? if it´s for the experts, then the current approach is fine. if it is for everyone, then we need to seriously reconsider. but this is just not working at the moment. you gave the example of Diana, Princess of Wales as well. theoretically it should be Diana Spencer. and since we already have a bunch of exceptions, we need to talk about this and get the record straight how to continue. also, nobody would ever know who Elisabeth of Bavaria or IN Bavaria or von Wittelsbach or whatever is. the article should be Elisabeth, Empress of Austria and not this current name. Antares911 00:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For Queen Mary...where would you suggest she be? Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom? Queen Mary of the United Kingdom? john k 00:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

since apparently there was only one Queen Mary of the UK, i think she could be listed under that. your suggestion would be the next step: since she was consort and not regnant, do we list her name first and then title from her husband, or maybe the title first? I´m thinking about "Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother", so maybe the second one is better. Antares911 01:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The late Queen Mother started off as Queen Elizabeth and therefore would have to be known as that, according to what you seem to be suggesting. Deb 20:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You beat me to it, Deb! I was about to say that. I don't think Antares, though genuine and wellmeaning, understands the principles of monarchical naming, the hierarchy of titles, or that problems associated with naming non-ordinalised consorts and seems to think you can apply the same rules to non-ordinalised consorts as you can to ordinalised monarchs. In practice you can't. The reversion rule is standard biographical style used not just here but by every source. How many encyclopaedias use Queen Catherine for Catherine of Aragon? For examples of usage see: Catherine of Aragon Catherine of Aragon Catherine of Braganza

Also Royal Genealogies lists as consorts lists George V's wife as Queen Mary of Teck (May) not Queen Mary. George VI's wife is Lady Elizabeth Angela Marguerite BOWES-LYON. Tsar Alexander III of Russia's name is in as Family: Tsarina Dagmar "Marie" of Denmark. His father, Alexander III of Russia's wife is in as Marie of Hesse-Darmstadt. Similarly a search for Queen Mary produces endless references to Mary I, Mary II, Mary Queen of Scots. But only one reference in the first 100 links to George V's wife as Queen Mary. In contrast Mary of Teck produces 6,000 references to the same woman. So calling George V's wife Queen Mary would make no sense in terms of links, would break standard historical nomenclature, not to mention being unusable given her lack of an ordinal.

One need only look at the list of Danish queens on a site about key Danish women. A page of influential women in Swedish history speaks of the following Danish queens. Note that they are referred to by maiden title.

• 1259-66 Regent Dowager Queen Margrethe Sambiria Sprænghest
• 1286-92 Regent Dowager Queen Agnes af Brandenburg
• 1376-87 Regent Queen Margrethe I Valdemarsdatter
• 1814-15 Regent Queen Marie Sofie Frederikke zu Hessen-Kassel
• 1972-2000 Co-Deputy Head of State Queen Ingrid of Sweden

Or how French queens are referred to as. Here is just a small part of the list:

• Hugues I "Capet" (c.940-996), comte de Paris, duc de France 956, king 987
  • 968 Adélaïs d'Aquitaine (945-1006)
• Henri I (1008-1060)
  • Mathilde d'Alllemagne (?1034)
• Louis VIII (1187-1226)
  • 1200 Blanche de Castille (1188-1252)
• Philippe III (1245-85)
  • 1262 Isabelle d'Aragon (1247-71)
• Louis XIV (1638-1715)
  • Maria-Teresa of Austria (1638-83)
• Louis-Philippe I (1773-1850), king of the French 1830-48
  • Marie-Amélie of Two-Sicilies (1782-1866)

Put simply, queens consort are invariably referred to after their death by maiden name/title. They are not referred to by their consort name. So why should the wife of George V be any different? And why should Wikipedia be the odd one out in encyclopaedias and source books in how it names deceased consorts? FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 21:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Invariably? That is certainly not true. I will note, for a start, Russian Empresses who took new names upon their conversion to Orthodoxy. Dagmar of Denmark is much less well known than Empress Marie Feodorovna, and Alix of Hesse and by Rhine is considerably less well known than Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. john k 21:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What I meant to say (and sorry BTW I wasn't careful in the way I said it. I was downloading a new browser, watching the TV and writing! Sorree!) is that even in those cultures where a specific unique consort nomenclature exists that would facilitate using of consort names, maiden name/titles are still used, though it is incorrect to say that western readers use Eastern monarchical consort names even in those cases. They don't. In academic sources I use it is about 60-40 consort name/maiden name. That certainly wouldn't justify abandoning maiden name usage on an international sourcebook like Wikipedia. But those cases in themselves are exceptions. Maiden name/title is the standard format, particularly in cultures were the consort name does not give a unique disambigulation reference, as in countries where there have been multiple queens consort called Mary, Elizabeth, Catherine, etc. Queen Mary is hopeless for disambigulation purposes. And nobody who has ever studied mediæval history will have used anything other than Blanche of Castille, Elizabeth of York, etc. Unless there is clear evidence of disambigulation potential, and that only applies in a few limited cases where each consort has a unique consort name, Wikipedia should not depart from the start reference form for referring to deceased consorts, which is by maiden name/title. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 22:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to contribute to this topic Antares911. My understanding would be that some rigid, standardised rule would not actually help improve the obvious shortcoming (have often mused over the subject myself!), I would suggest to find a DISAMBIGUATION PAGE solution of some sort. This would allow a more general approach in searching for a particular personage. As a rule, however, NAMES should precede titles (Example: Marie Antoinette, Queen of France, born Archduchess of Austria. d. : Erzherzogin von Öesterreich. etc). STYLES should never be used in direct connection with the NAME. It sounds terribly silly and sycophantic to list a monarch, here, as HIM or HM, as we are referring to encyclopedic entries, that are not in particular need of imperial/royal court protocol!--Pantherarosa 00:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hi there FearÉIREANN, once again please keep your comments and suggestions concise, otherwise this discussion is becoming unwieldy with text. i appreciate your comments however and will keep on taking them into consideration.

hi Panthearosa, thanks for your contribution. I think your proposal is not bad either, i was looking up some other encyclopedias, and indeed they first list the name, then the title. so "Marie Antoinette, Queen of France is a good idea too, or Elisabeth, Empress of Austria. maybe we need to change Empress Michko into Michiko, Empress of Japan, can we agree on this?

i´ve been mocked by one 217.140.193.123 about my proposals. the reason why i am proposing these changes has nothing to do with sycophancy or whatever. i am simply trying to make use of Wikipedia easier for normal users, who would not know what each person was and what title etc... my proposals are just proposals, in order to make the search and use easier, nothing else. i would slowly like to make suggestions to the administrators, so that we can come to new logical rules soon... thanks again everyone, keep them coming. Antares911 28 June 2005 23:11 (UTC)

about the use of maiden-names of queen consorts: Again, I believe it makes sense with British consorts, if that is how it is used. however, I agree with john that "Empress Maria Feodorovna" of Russia is much better known than "Alix of Hesse", which was not even her real name. (Alexandra von Hessen-Darmstadt). or even "Elisabeth of Bavaria" which no encyclopedia would list her under as. and I think before we start listing exceptions after exceptions after exceptions, we should have some clear rules in order to avoid confusion in the future. many people who use Wikipedia do not actively contribute articles and therefore would not be familiar with all the "expert" namings, therefore we should try to make this as user-friendly as possible. or do you honestly expect your average internet-user to know immedeatly just by reading the article heading who "Princess Alix of Hesse", "Mary of Teck" were? Antares911 28 June 2005 23:11 (UTC)

Mary of Teck is the only possible location of that article. It should also be noted that Alexandra's birth name was certainly Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine. Her Russian name was Alexandra Feodorovna. She was named Alix, as the closest German equivalent to her mother's name, Alice. john k 29 June 2005 15:39 (UTC)

Yes. This is an encyclopædia, not a colouring book. We can't dumb down information when if they did only two minutes research they'd know exactly who Mary of Teck was. If you want a simple book, why not call Adolf Hitler "the German guy with the moustache who started a war"? After all a lot more people with a hazy recollection of names would recognise that description than they would his name. And we could always call Martin Luther King "the guy U2 sang about". And call the Pope "the guy in the white dress". Enyclopædias have minimum standards to follow, and one of them is to use maiden name/title for royal consorts. Whatever about making some exceptions for Russian consorts or Eastern monarchs, it is a non-negotiable standard for European royalty over a millennium. Only where there is an international encyclopædic consensus not to follow the rule, as with Marie Antoinette, should it not be followed. The only debatable issues are whether in some isolated cases, as in Russian consorts, native naming is generally used, and how long following the death of a former consort should it be before they are referred to by the standard academic and encyclopædic standard of maiden name/title? Or if they were previously married before their royal marriage, should they revert to pre-royal marital name (eg, Camilla Parker Bowles, Wallis Simpson) or maiden name (Camilla Shand, Wallis Warfield), and there the consensus seems to be to use pre-royal marriage name in preference to maiden name. But filling the encyclopædia full of Queen Elizabeths, Queen Marys, Queen Catherines, Queen Blaches, Queen Isobels, Queen Maries, Queen Enas, etc is a non-starter. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 29 June 2005 01:06 (UTC)

sorry User:FearÉIREANN i mean now you are just being silly, what are you talking about? i never suggested we should rename Adolf Hitler, where is this coming from all of a sudden? let´s stick to the discussion, shall we? i wrote down why I think we should rename some articles or at least get some better rules, and I am not the only one who thinks so. The majority of users who do not actively contribute to articles and are using Wikipedia for research, would just simply not know what "Alix of Hesse" was. would you suggest we start listing Pope John Paul II as Karol Wojtyła of Krakow? i don´t think that what i am suggesting is so ludicrous, it is simply a measure to ease navigation and help people, instead of sticking to dogmatic rules that don´t make sense in the end... User:antares911

Again, this talk has been ranting onwards under the title "other non-royal names", which, in my opinion, shows certain signs of the carefulness of the instigator of such rantings. 217.140.193.123 29 June 2005 14:49 (UTC)

Royal consorts, again

It is highly unsupported to try to make British consorts as exception. I cannot fathom what is thinking such peson who tries to propagate such, not seeing that the practice is common with most (if all) European countries.

Empress Maria Fedorovna of Russia means two distinct persons. Thus, it is much better to use Maria Fedorovna of Wurttemberg and Maria Fedorovna of Glucksburg. (And, this example hopefully shows to Antares that pre-marital designations ARE really needed. I hope. - though it may be too much hoped.)

(As the truth is rather the opposite, I must ask:) On what grounds does Antares claim that Alexandra von Hessen-Darmstadt was Alexandra Fedorovna's real name, and that Alix of Hesse was NOT????

Re Antares' ongoing desire and explicit intention to make new rules, I must say that having seen the lack of expertise of and the hasty actions Antares had made, such "Antares" rules will in all certainty NOT be tenable, credible, practical nor acceptable. The mentioned person should focus energy on something where the incompetence is not so blatant. 217.140.193.123 29 June 2005 14:49 (UTC)

you can check Wikipedia´s German language site, since she was a german princess, they will know best what her name was. one more thing 217.140.193.123, I have already asked you and I am doing it again, you either start posting your comments as a registered user, or your comments will be simply deleted from this forum and disregarded. if you continue making personal attacks on me from behind your anonymity, i will report your address to the administrators. sorry but i am simply fed up by your impossible behaviour. are we clear on this? Antares911 29 June 2005 18:20 (UTC)

The above scream by Antares contains several violations against Wikipedia policies. Seeing elsewhere other evidence of conduct by Antares, I believe that quite soon Antares will get reprimanded or banned. 217.140.193.123 30 June 2005 07:35 (UTC)

The anonymous user is correct. Your proposals would not be tenable, credible, practical, accessible or acceptable. Wikipedia cannot simply abandon traditional consort nomenclature used everywhere else. If it did it would look amateurish and incompetent. I don't think you understand what the norms in royal nomenclature are. (BTW anonymous users are perfectly entitled to contribute if they wish. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 29 June 2005 18:30 (UTC)

the anonymous user may post what he likes, however if he starts making personal remarks then he will be kicked out, simple as that.

Very interesting that Antares erases comments of others from Talk pages of articles. 217.140.193.123 30 June 2005 06:26 (UTC)

I have said it many times and I will say it many times again: the current way of naming queen consorts and empress consorts, as well as non-european royalty and non-british nobility is misleading and confusing. according to current rules Marie Antoinette would have to be Maria Antonia, Archduchess of Austria. that will simply not work. that´s why i have suggested to name at least the non-british royals with the titles they carried for most of their life. same goes for Asian royals. you (talk) are simply still not convincing me, that the current way is the best way, i have already stated that before. maybe you could make some constructive suggestions of how we best solve this dilemna, instead of insisting that nothing change, and now even suggest that I don´t understand the norms of royal nomenclature?

i am sure you understand how it works in the UK and I respect you for that, but the same format cannot go for all others around the world, because that is not how academia does it, regardless of what you claim. Antares911 29 June 2005 18:52 (UTC)

You keep making an issue about naming conventions in the UK. This is nothing to do with the UK, as you have been told repeatedly. For a start I am not British and don't follow rules simply because Britain follows them. Maiden title for past consorts is the standard device used worldwide in English for all European and most world monarchs, with a handful of unique exceptions. For example

• Blanche of Castile was the queen consort of King Louis VIII of France.
• Ingrid of Sweden was queen consort of King Frederick VIII of Denmark.
• Marie José of Belgium was queen consort to King Umberto II of Italy.
• Eleonore of Austria was queen consort to King Manuel I of Portugal.
• Marie Louise of Austria and Josephine de Beauharnais were empress consorts to Emperor Napoleon I of France.
• Augusta Viktoria, Duchess of Schleswig-Holstein was empress consort to Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany.
• Emma of Waldeck and Pyrmont was the queen consort of William III of the Netherlands.

All of these, and hundreds, probably thousands, of others, are known by maiden title, not just in the UK, but worldwide. So unilaterally deciding that Wikipedia is going to be different is simply not an option. So far the only justification you have produced is that you find it confusing. Obviously as this system is used worldwide, millions clearly don't. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 29 June 2005 19:39 (UTC)

yeah, naming them that way makes sense when you list them together with their spouses. however, with queen consorts that are not well-known at all, naming them by themselves is misleading. and this does not even apply to queen consorts, but to empress consorts and consorts of other nobility as well. or do consorts of nobility also have to revert to their maiden name? Antares911 29 June 2005 19:52 (UTC)

Coming from a republic I am not fully au fait with all the traditions of noyal royal noble consort naming (a tongue-twister, that!). One option could be to create a disambigulation under the name of a royal consort, for example Queen Elizabeth. It could then say

Queen Elizabeth is a name associated with many queens regnant and queens consort. They are:

• Elizabeth I of England was the reigning Queen of England (1558-1693)
• Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom was the reigning Queen of the United Kingdom (1952-present)
• Elizabeth of York was Queen consort of King Henry VII of England (1486-1503)
• Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was Queen consort of King George VI of the United Kingdom (1936-1952). She was later known as Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother (1952-2002)
• Elizabeth of Neuwied was the Queen Consort of King Carol II of Romania.
• Elizabeth of Romania was the Queen consort of King George II of Greece.

BTW just putting together this list shows the problems associated with using consort names in titles. Anyone worldwide looking to find Elizabeth of Romania, the wife of George II of Greece, if they looked in Wikipedia would be directed to Queen Elizabeth of Romania, who the rest of the biographical world apparently calls Elizabeth of Neuweid!!! That is why I have been so dogmatic on the issue of using maiden names/titles. Everyone else does it. If we don't, Wikipedia would be unusable as a source because we would direct people to the wrong pages. (Now I'd better go off and sort out the Elizabeth of Romania mess. Oh goodie!) FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 29 June 2005 20:31 (UTC)

Whatever the German wikipedia may say, her name was Victoria Alix Helena Luise Beatrice von Hessen bei Rhein. Alexandra was only the name she took upon conversion to Orthodoxy. As to the anon - Marie Feodorovna of Denmark - why the insistence on Glucksburg? If we have Alexandra of Denmark, I don't see why her sister should be styled differently. john k 29 June 2005 18:37 (UTC)

• I agree with JT, the current system of having deceased Queen-consorts under their maiden name is the best and most sensible way of listing this group of people. We have disambigiouty pages and re-directs, as well as extensive categorisation and templates for many of the royals, so I can't really see why people would be unable to locate particular articles. Astrotrain June 29, 2005 20:07 (UTC)

Antares - current policy only requires that Marie Antoinette be at Marie Antoinette of Austria, which is a perfectly reasonable place for her to be. There is no requirement that the maiden title (Archduchess) be used (in fact, we say that it should not be), and certainly no requirement to use the original form of the name. Otherwise we'd have Doña Anna d'Austria, Infanta of Spain instead of Anne of Austria. john k 29 June 2005 22:53 (UTC)

Agree. We may be at crossed purposes. What I mean my maiden title is that one doesn't use the consort title and maiden name eg, Queen 'Ingrid of Sweden' of Denmark. etc. The form Ingrid of Sweden is adequate. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 29 June 2005 23:02 (UTC)

nope sorry John, that´s where I disagree. then why is Sophie, Archduchess of Austria listed that way? Wikipedia has many listings of royalty and nobility with format Name, title and country, be it Grandduke, Archduke, prince, whatever... so saying Marie Antoinette of Austria would be implying she was queen of Austria by Wikipedia rules. just like Empress Maria Theresa of Austria. she was however never queen of Austria, but born an archduchess, therefore the correct titel would be Maria Antonia, Archduchess of Austria. User:antares911 30 June 2005 11:49 (UTC)

Perhaps Sophie, who never was consort of a monarch, is treated like a peeress. Otherwise, she should likely be at Sophie of Bavaria which suits her rather well as she was a daughter of the king there. Whereas "Marie Antoinette of Austria" certainly does not imply that she was monarch of Austria (for example, the ordinal is lacking, and, even if monarch could be without ordinal, anyway there is no such implication as the formula is used to non-reigning daughters too). Maria Theresa is sort of exception. Title is written "title" in proper English, not "titel" as in German or in Swedish. (And, the above comment should have not been inserted between John and Jtdirl particularly because Jtdirl -without repeating the issue- replied by "agree".) 217.140.193.123 30 June 2005 12:11 (UTC)

User Antares seems to have used the following IP: 213.7.94.25 - and also some others of the same basis 213.7... Since yesterday that user has been making edits and erasures anon, apparently desiring not to reveal being Antares. 217.140.193.123 30 June 2005 12:18 (UTC) - Today I found that User:at33 (which obviously is Antares' sockpuppet) is using IP 160.45.163.109 - this is good to know. 217.140.193.123 17:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Re the sister Alexandra, there is now a problem since apparently (at least according to National Biographies) she was of Glucksburg when marrying, see Talk:Alexandra of Denmark 217.140.193.123 29 June 2005 20:37 (UTC)

Consorts of noblity follow the rules for them, for example a consort of peer is known as her peeress name.

If a consort of monarch is so little known that people do not search for her as individual, in that case it follows that they seek using different keyword, such as the name of husband, and then a link in the husband's article takes care of the thing - thus those little known ones (if they have articles - insignificants often do not) can be located under the pre-marital name, and practically nothing suffers from that rule. Whereas, the better known ones are usually known by their pre-marital names, much due to the longtime naming standard, and of course should be located as such. 217.140.193.123 29 June 2005 20:37 (UTC)

In my understanding, national histories mostly use pre-marital names for consorts, as that is useful (many reasons, e.g: it directly indicates her background which may have been important in external relations of the country at that time; it helps prevent confusion with similarly first-named in-laws, such as sisters-in-law; it helps disambiguate queens). Usually only contemporaries use the consort name. Historians think in longer term.

History of another nation may refer to in consort name, as to them her background was usually not very important. Thus, a Danish could refer to Queen Catherine of England when speaking of Henry VIII's first wife, but English historian is more likely to refer to Catherine of Aragon. A Spanish could refer to Queen Catherine of England, but he may have a specal interest to call her as Catherine of Aragon.

As historians f the country where the consort lived as consort, and also of her native country, are usually in key position to establish her name to posterity, I believe these reasons have lead to the current practice. 217.140.193.123 29 June 2005 20:37 (UTC)

Titles & Place Names

I've just noticed that the Keith Joseph page has been amended as follows "(Not Baron Joseph 'of Portsoken' as this is a territorial description not part of the title)" the 'of Portsoken' was removed from the name & title in the article. I agree that the "of..." isn't part of the title but in many cases the 'Duke of...' is much better known than the actual title (eg Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury). Do we have a convention regarding this as there are a number of articles referring to 'Duke of...' in the title of the article & I'm sure that there must be many others in which the nobles are referred to in the text as Duke, Earl, etc of... I can't see anything on this on the naming conventions page - does anyone have any thoughts? AllanHainey 28 June 2005 14:13 (UTC)

See territorial designation. Proteus (Talk) 28 June 2005 14:23 (UTC)

A Little Help

Hi. I'm about to start a new article and I'd like to get the title right, to avoid or at least minimize controversies about how the article should be named (in fact, I intend to copy and paste this discussion onto the future article's talk page, to make it known there). First, it will be about the present legitimist pretender to the Brazilian throne. His name is Luiz de Orléans e Bragança and he is usually referred to as "Prince Dom Luiz de Orléans e Bragança" (the word "Dom" is not really part of his name, it's a deference, as the spanish word "don"). His present status is Head of the Brazilian Imperial House. The problem, or maybe problems, is/are: Brazil is a Republic today, and there's no legal recognition of anyone as being a prince. His being called "Prince Luiz" is a matter of tradition and deference; In Brazil, there's no such style as "Prince of Brazil", and the prince is never referred to as "Luiz of Brazil"; If the monarchy were still in force, he'd be the Emperor, if he were the first in line (which is his present hypothetical situation), he'd be the "Imperial Prince", but as it stands, there's no monarchy, no perspective of restauration and the prince is never addressed as "Imperial Prince", except maybe for legitimists. As I said, he is commonly called "Prince Dom Luiz de Orléans e Bragança".
So, I'm in doubt as to how I should title the article: "Luiz of Brazil"? "Luiz de Orléans e Bragança"? "Luiz, Prince of Brazil"? Or maybe some other title? I've read the policy time and again and still I can't settle for a title that I'd be sure to be in harmony with said policy. Can I get any help? Thanks, Redux 29 June 2005 17:25 (UTC)

I'd suggest "Luiz de Orléans e Bragança," or "Dom Luiz de Orléans e Bragança," if that is how he is commonly known. Titles of pretense should only be used if they are / BTW, in English, the title would be "Prince Imperial," not "Imperial Prince." I will note, though, that this site, which is normally pretty reliable for such things, states that he bears the style of "Prince of Brazil," and that "Prince of Orleans and Braganza" is a lesser title...BTW, are there different terms for supporters of the junior line (represented by Luiz) and the senior line (represented by Prince Pedro Gastão)? john k 29 June 2005 18:49 (UTC)

Just to note: if he is almost universally known as Luiz de Orléans e Bragança, it would certainly be POV to call him Prince Luiz of Brazil as the article title. But his formal style, as used by Brazilian monarchists and as (presumably) is regulated by pre-1889 laws, should still be listed in the article. john k 29 June 2005 18:51 (UTC)

I agree with User:John Kenney. probably best to go with how he is known in Brazil, either way. the rest of the titles and so can be obviously mentioned in the article itself. if everyone in Brazil knows him as "Dom Luiz (...etc)" then I would probably go with that way.. Antares911 29 June 2005 18:55 (UTC)

I believe it is somewhat dangerous to instruct to create articles "how he is known in Brazil", and similarly preferring native name forms. As this in English Wikipedia, the abovesaid may result in articles with TOO foreign names. Many important names have English translitterations, versions and established use. After all, a relevant Wikipedia policy states "the most common form the person is known to English-speakers". Thus, it is worth cautioning that the rule here is certainly not "how known in native language". 217.140.193.123 30 June 2005 06:36 (UTC)

I would make such article under either Louis of Orleans-Braganza or Luiz de Orleans-Braganza. As this is English Wikipedia, established English versions of names are very much preferred, thus Orleans-Braganza (All I have read suggests that it, with hyphen and using "z" is the most used english version). "e" instead of hyphen is Portuguese practice applied to combine father's and mother's name, and there it actually goes wrong, as his mother was de Baviera. It was rigidly correct in the first generation (dom Luiz' grandfather's) where father was Orleans and mother the last Braganza of Brazil. Now it should (if I have not misunderstood this Portuguese piece of naming culture) be de Orléans-Braganca e de Baviera. Louis is the clear English variant, and it is recommendable, also because he is not well known around the world with any native name form. However, Luiz is allowable on the same basis as king Juan Carlos - but if using Luiz, then preferably "de" as it seems bad form to me to adulter "of" in midst of all those foreign names. Certainly not the title "prince" in the article name, if it not absolutely necessary for disambig purposes. Also I feel that it may be POV to put "of Brazil" into the article name, thus I would avoid. And, simplicity is best, thus no unnecessary words into the article name. His styles, claims, rights etc are to be presented, in objective wordings, in the text of the article.

Is he actually "dom Luiz Gastao"?? and - Does anyone know has the title "Prince of Grao Para" disappered totally from claims and titularies?

I would make a separate List page of List of Heads of the Brazilian Imperial House, list all those and shortly their claims there, linking each to individual's article. That list page may be, but not necessarily must, a part of another page that lists all the two Brazilian emperors. Usually I would want such pages be two separate ones, but here we are speaking only a few persons for each of those lists, thus economics could be the ground to combine those. However, in that case the text must express VERY clear distinction between who ruled, who pretended.

AFAIK the so-called senior line renounced their rights a century ago because of unequal marriage, thus Pedro Gastao is dynastically not The Prince, but -a bit simplifying- only a titled aristocrat. They use the same basic title, "prince of Orleans-Braganza" but are not entitled to succession. I am aware that Pedro Gastao has tried to revoke his father's renunciation. AFAIK his father was never a pretender, did not personally make the claim, but more or less deferred to the rights of his brother's line. 217.140.193.123 29 June 2005 20:09 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for your interest. Let me start by addressing the translation suggestion by the anon at 217.140.193.123: I'm not sure, you mentioned that the family name has a common English version. That's unsual. But in the case of Prince Luiz, I don't believe that there's any used form for his name — you said he is not known by any native form, but if neither is he known by an English form, it would appear that we can't use a translated version in the title of the article about him. If I'm not wrong, Wikipedia does not translate names, we can only use the common translation if it exists. I'm completely unaware of any common form of translation, into any language, of the "de Orléans e Bragança" last name, but in the particular case of Prince Luiz, since, as you said yourself, he is not known by any form, it would appear that the native name would apply by default. Also, we can't translate his first name because he is a pretender, that is, he never reigned. Even if he did, I believe the rule of common use would apply. As in the cases of the two only monarchs to have actually ruled in Brazil, it is most likely that the Portuguese version would have prevailed. There was a long discussion in the Pedro I of Brazil article about whether it should be moved to "Peter I of Brazil", until evidence was presented that indicated that, in English literature, he was always referred to as "Pedro I of Brazil".
The prince also has a much longer name than this, as it is traditional with Portuguese/Brazilian royals, but the commonly used form was the one I indicated in my original comment.
Now, John indicated that the Prince does actually detain the style of "Prince of Brazil". I was talking to Antares911 about how the most logical choice, given the common use, would be "Luiz de Orléans e Bragança", without the word "dom", which is neither part of his name nor a title or style, but rather just a deference, some sort of "old form" of the word "mister" that is no longer used in Brazil except for royals. But I thought that this would have a weird ring to it, since it's unusual to have an article about royalty named as if it was about an athlete, a musician, or some other public figure. So I came to think that a good compromise, albeit somewhat lenghty, would be "Luiz de Orléans e Bragança, Prince of Brazil". Comments?
Now, on to the other questions. First, john's question about the different names for the senior branch and the junior branch. Yes, there are two very particular expressions. The senior non-dinastic branch headed by Prince Pedro Gastão (more commonly known as "Dom Gastão") is called the "Petrópolis Branch", whereas the junior dinastic branch is called the "Vassouras Branch". Petrópolis and Vassouras are the two towns where the heads of the two branches settled upon their return to Brazil following the end of the exile that had been imposed to the Imperial Family.
Now, about the anon's question about the title. Some of the titles, although still in theoretical existence, have stopped being used by the Imperial Family due to fact that, not only there's no monarchy in Brazil, but also there's no perspective of restauration. In any case, the titles were/are three:
1. Monarch: Emperor/Head of the Imperial House
2. 1st in line: Prince Imperial (thanks to john for this, it will be useful in the article)
3. 2nd in line: Prince of Grão Pará ("Grão Pará" was a province in Brazil, a little larger than the present state of Pará, which now occupies most of the original area).
I hope I have addressed everything. Regards, Redux 30 June 2005 20:46 (UTC)

There are plenty of English texts which use Orleans-Braganza, not Orléans e Braganca. please google the net, or whatever. Already John's reference page http://pages.prodigy.net/ptheroff/gotha/brazil.html uses that: "of Orleans-Braganza". When a name has an established version in english, we do not use it intermittently, but it should be used consistently. Thus, dom Luiz should be as Orleans-Braganza as others, there is no justification to put him differently - I expect the founder of that article to check carefully which are the common English usages of the surname. (All Savoy royals are here "of Savoy", not so that some of them were "di Savoia".)
Then, first names: Wikipedia translates them to most monarchs and to some pretenders. There is no impediment to translate the first name of a pretender. However, I accept the version "Luiz", basically for same reasons as Juan Carlos.
Re Antares, as that person clearly does not understand the basics of encyclopedic work, but is pushing all sorts of titularies to headings, it is definitely not wise to listen Antares' opinions.
"Luiz de Orléans e Bragança, Prince of Brazil" is bad for a heading, there are unnecessary parts as burden. Headings should be simple. If it weren't likely POV, I would recommend Luiz of Brazil (which would be NPOV had he born as "of Brazil" officially accepted by the then state, and alternatively would be acceptable had his line received "of Brazil" officially from the Empire), but to reach NPOV, it would be recommendable not to use that, and instead Luiz de Orleans-Braganza remains as acceptable. 217.140.193.123 30 June 2005 21:25 (UTC)

The article has not been "founded" yet. I will not start it until this discussion yields some sort of understanding about the article's title. If the English version of the name is common use, you can rest assured it will be used in the title if it is decided that the family name should indeed be part of it, that's the whole point of mine starting this discussion prior to creating the article. It does not help that you start creating redirect pages for your proposed names. This may multiply needlessly the work that others will have to perform if the name chosen for the article turns out to be different from you idea. I would also request that you refrain from accusing other users of not knowing what they are doing because their opinions differ from yours. We're all volunteers here and we are all just trying to get it right. Antares' ideas will be taken into consideration the same as yours. If your proposal turns out to be the accurate/better one, it will be adopted, simple as that.
About your argumentation, I'm not sure if "[Prince] of Brazil" would be out only because there was no recognition from the Brazilian State to that style when he was born or because the Empire did not bestow this upon the family (it wasn't necessary then, whereas many pretenders nowadays seem to carry the style name of country, when back when the country that might be concerned was still a monarchy, there was no use of said style). Not forgetting about the website that does refer to his style of "Prince of Brazil" too. Finally, if we were to use the English version of the name, wouldn't it be "Luiz of Orleans-Braganza"? Or do we keep the particle "de", which is Portuguese? I still believe that it would be better to have some sort of style as part of the title though. Regards, Redux 1 July 2005 04:13 (UTC)

I accept "Luiz of Orleans-Braganza". Since Orleans-Braganza can be regarded as English version as "Spain" in Juan Carlos I of Spain.
A titulary ("style") as part of heading is not acceptable, if it is not unavoidably necessary, and moreover, there is the requisite that the person is generally known by that "style". - all styles, claims and titles belong rather to the text of the article, not to heading.
Could you kindly give evidence about pretenders to whom general public now accepts the style name of country, despite of back when the country was still a monarchy, there was no use of said style??? I happen to doubt that, therefore happy to hear contrary evidence if such exists. 217.140.193.123 1 July 2005 06:19 (UTC)

All right, the anon has settled for "Luiz of Orleans-Braganza", which seems to be acceptable. About the style in the title, I'm still not sure, check out Louis-Alphonse, Duc d'Anjou. That's a French style, which I don't think Republican France acknowledges, and I don't believe he would be known as "Louis-Alphonse, Duc d'Anjou", bur rather [more likely] as Louis-Alphonse, or just Louis, or Louis d'Anjou, or maybe even Louis-Alphonse last name. The article does not elaborate on that, but the title doesn't seem to be questioned, in fact it serves as a paradigm right here in the project policy page. Following the same logic, it seems to me that the article could be named "Luiz of Orleans-Braganza, Prince of Brazil" (since we have a reference that indicates that this style does exist and is acknowledged by royalists — and it is referenced in a English-language website) or maybe "Luiz, Prince of Brazil" (but not "Luiz of Brazil", following the explanation given by the anon). Regards, Redux 1 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the French Republic at least semi-officially, and possibly officially, recognizes the titles of pretense of its various pretenders. France is a rather strange republic, it must be said - it also recognizes noble titles, and succession to them is regulated by law. So a French duc is actually a duc under French law, and if you're a duc, and somebody else decides to start going by your title, you can sue them. john k 1 July 2005 16:14 (UTC)

Louis-Alphonse's titles are not a good example, firstly because Anjou is not the name of the country. It is "only" a duchy, and the French are accustomed to it having dukes. And, as John pointed out, the nice French (which I like) apparently cultivate their pretenders and their nobility. (If I have not misunderstood, Louis-Alphonse actually does not use that Anjou title. Its use is possibly odd.) If he uses, he has some justification as it was granted to his ancestor in the end of 17th century, and he IS the dukedom's heir according to its original grant stipulations (thus, this derives from the principle "if the state has granted"). Louis-Alphonse apparently has no other title (he is not infante of Spain afaik, etc), thus bared to bones, he is "Luis Alfonso de Borbon".
The heading for Louis-Alphonse is here based on idea that he is a "peer", and the heading is directly the applicatrion of that. But it does not fit to Luiz regarding "of Brazil", as I doubt greatly that Brazil can be regarded as peerage. And, anyway, I am against unnecessary style and unnecessary titulary in headings. 217.140.193.123 1 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)

Ok, I've done some research. We already had John's reference to the title "Prince of Brazil". Here's what I found out: when he was forced to return to Portugal under the Porto Revolution, John VI conferred upon his son, Pedro, the title of "Prince of Brazil". That was in 1822. After the independence, the Imperial Constitution of 1824 recognized his title of "Prince of Brazil", although the heir to the throne, Pedro II, and later every other heir who was first in line, came to be known as "Prince Imperial". The 1824 Constitution was only replaced in 1891, when Brazil had become a republic. There's nothing in that or any other Brazilian Constitution that followed that expressly revokes the titles of nobility, although they have no legal purpose since the country is a republic. This is probably why the princes are still referred to as "prince(ss)" and "dom". So, as it turns out, "Prince of Brazil" isn't a fiction made up for the present pretenders, but rather it is a title, or style (?) that was conferred and recognized by the Absolute monarch of Portugal (meaning: he was the law) and later ractified by the Constitution of independent Brazil. And it was never formally revoked. Nowadays, since the Head of the Imperial House is unable to reign, and he would not exaclty be "first in line", since he is the potential monarch, he (Prince Luiz) bears the title of "Prince of Brazil",whereas the title of "Prince Imperial" is exclusive to the first one in line after the monarch/head of the Imperial House (today, the Prince Imperial is Prince Luiz's younger brother, Prince Bertrand of Orleans-Braganza, since prince Luiz is unmarried and childless, and the Prince of Grão Pará is yet another brother of Prince Luiz, since Prince Bertrand is also unmarried and childless, Prince Antonio of Orleans-Braganza, whose son, Prince Pedro Luiz of Orleans-Braganza is fourth in line). So, apparently, the title "Prince of Brazil" would be recognized with the same degree of "gray area" as the French titles. And I have visited a couple of royalist sites from Brazil, which had, at least to some degree, the cooperation of the Imperial Family and which refer to Prince Luiz as "Luiz of Brasil". What about that?? Regards, Redux 1 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)

Thus, Brazil is going to be regarded as a Portuguese peerage. Funny :) 217.140.193.123 1 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)

Prince of Brazil actually was title for some Portuguese heirs apparent (or even heirs presumptive) of the Portuguese throne.

So we could go with "Luiz of Orleans-Braganza, Prince of Brazil", or alternatively, I could also suggest "Prince Luiz of Orleans-Braganza". This second one just occurred me. It's shorter and, I believe, doesn't stir controversy, since we don't dispute his status as "Prince", which is, incidentally, commonly used, since no one says "Luiz of Orleans-Braganza", but rather, at the very least, "Prince Luiz of Orleans-Braganza". Thoughts? Regards, Redux 2 July 2005 02:18 (UTC)

Prince Luiz of Orleans-Braganza seems like the best choice to me. We should explain, however, that he is more formally styled (by Brazilian royalists and perhaps others) as Prince Luiz of Brazil. john k 2 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)

Great. So, if no one will object the name, I will start the article this weekend. Regards, Redux 2 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)

Pretender naming

Having briefly checked, it seems that there is wide acceptance for use of country name as "surname" of a pretender, were that a part of name the pretender would anyway received as a member of the former ruling dynasty. Thus

1. Maria Vladimirovna of Russia seems to be accepted because the imperial legislation would anyway have given her the "of Russia" as to any other dynast (either as Prince or as a Grand Duke) were she not the pretender - and that is ot changed by the fact that she was born after suppressing the empire which is the source of that name.
2. Ernest August of Hanover seems to be accepted despite him being born long after the loss of the kingdom.
3. Philippos of Greece and Denmark seems accepted. Though he was born after the last coup.
4. Zita of Parma, same thing. Apparently the kingdom of Italy did not oppose the former ducal family using the name of one Italian town.
5. currently living Archdukes of Austria seem to be accepted as such, though the republic of Austria probably is not happy. 217.140.193.123 30 June 2005 21:25 (UTC)

It is acceptable to do this, but only in instances where this is how the person is normally known. We also have Otto von Habsburg, even though we might use Archduke Otto of Austria. If Dom Luiz is not normally known as "Prince Luiz of Brazil," his article should not be there. john k 30 June 2005 21:32 (UTC)

• Contemporary "Archdukes of Austria" are problematic, since "noble" names are not legally accepted if they are Austrian citizens. See e.g. Karl Habsburg-Lothringen, which is the guy's actual name. (Otto apparently holds German citizenship.) Martg76 30 June 2005 21:43 (UTC)

I base my opinion on e.g Belgium officially accepting it. Certain of their hereditary princes are "of Austria, of Belgium". This is one of the reasons to accept the continued use of country name by deposed monarch families, as many other countries have tended to accept them, and because the jurisdiction of the country of origin is, err, limited. The country can rant and ramble and ban etc, but people living outside its borders can equally laugh and ignore. 217.140.193.123 30 June 2005 21:50 (UTC)

The requisites for use of name containing "of an existing country" for its pretender should be:

1. the person is generally known by that country name (and, preferably, at least some governments in the world clearly tolerate that use), and.
2. back when the country was still a monarchy, the same name was in use for regular members of the dynasty, not only to monarch and/or heir apparent.
   

Or, the government of the country in question accepts, or had sometime in the lifetime of the pretender in question accepted, that use of the country name. 217.140.193.123 1 July 2005 06:44 (UTC)

Any titulary or style should not be used for pretender's heading if it is not unavoidably necessary for disambiguation. Respect (in other words, sycophancy) is not sufficient for that heading use. 217.140.193.123 1 July 2005 06:44 (UTC)

• Well, any country's "rambling" is not as irrelevant as you say it is. A person's name is a matter of law, namely the law of citizenship to which conflict of laws rules point here. Thus, any person's legal name should have a presumption of being the "actual" one for purposes of Wikipedia, unless, of course, the presumption can be rebutted by showing that another name is more commonly used in English. That would have to be done in every specific case, of course. Martg76 1 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)

I am not saying it is irrelevant, nor am I saying that it is compelling. However, your reference to conflict of laws is inappropriate. If a pretender lives in another country (which usually is the case) the original country does not have jurisdiction (have you actually read real books about international private law, as I had several years ago). Another point is that in some countries law stipulates very much and punishments threat almost all footsteps, in some most things are private matters, and then there are countries in between. The first-mentioned countries are usually such where in certain eras "subjects were entitled to do only things allowed explicitly by law", as law historians have described the codicile of royal Prussia (and certain other German areas) - btw, where do you live.? I understand that in such places even surnames are highly regulated matters of state. Then, we have several countries where a name is a thing a person announces when assuming it. How about USA - isn't it so that in USA, a person may take whatever name (s)he wants??
Austria has no real power over archdukes other than those who live within borders of Austria, and I doubt that today Austrian government is overly concerned with titularies - it just may be that they a bit cultivate their historical sightseeing objects, as in several existing monarchies royals have become useful advertising tools. 217.140.193.123 2 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)

It seems that there are no serious objections to my proposals for prerequisites to use country name as part of pretender's name here. 217.140.193.123 2 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)

• First, I have doubts that, in the US, a person can take any legal name (s)he wants. It would be interesting if you could provide evidence. However, we should not confuse legal names and stage names, pseudonyms etc., which will not be used by government authorities or courts. BTW, your generalization on Prussian and other laws are slightly offensive and also irrelevant in 21st century European societies.
• Second, your reference to jurisdiction is irrelevant, as the question of what a person's name is a matter of substantive law, not jurisdiction. Those two things should not be confused. Admittedly, I cannot find anything on names in the US Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws, but continental statutes seem to be pretty clear on the issue. E.g. § 10(1) EGBGB (Germany): Der Name einer Person unterliegt dem Recht des Staates, dem die Person angehört. -- The name of a person is subject to the law of the state to which (s)he belongs. For Austria, see IPRG § 13(1). Presumably similar statutes exist in other countries as well, I am not willing to do more research at this point (which may involve complicated issues of renvoi, dual citizenship etc.). Hence it follows that the names of Habsburgs who are Austrian citizens are subject to Austrian law, which prohibits noble titles (see Austrian nobility).
• Of course the Austrian government is not at all preoccupied with titularies today, which are of no practical relevance since they don't exist. The prohibition is still good law, and Austrian government officials and courts will not address a Habsburg as an archduke.
• I merely submit that any person's legal name should create a presumption for what the title of that person's Wikipedia page should be. Of course that presumption can be rebutted in each individual case, for example if that person chooses to call himself Prince, Marilyn Manson or the Grand Duke of Birobijan, and if that person is actually better known under that name. This seems to be in line with Wikipedia policy. There is no reason why this should not equally apply to pretenders.
• If you disagree with that presumption, you should make a good case why your particular preferences on what a person's name is should take precedence over the laws of democratic countries. Martg76 2 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)

Laws of "democratic" countries is not a decisive factor as they vary from country to country. Actually, such notion, with the particularity of you adding "democratic" signals authoritative desires rather than objectivity.
We will have too many problems in deciding what is the "legal" surname, as in controversial cases there expectedly is at least two competing views of even that fact. And in other than controversial cases, the name problem presumably does not rise to such level that we need to know the legal surname. 217.140.193.123 3 July 2005 12:15 (UTC)

Well, variation in laws (including surnames) is precisely the reason why conflict of law rules are needed. My claim, backed up by statutory references above, is simply that the legal surname follows the law of the person's citizenship. As long as we know a person's citizenship, we should thus have no problems determining what his/her surname is. What's your problem with that? Martg76 3 July 2005 12:53 (UTC)

Dear Martg, it seems that you have severe problems in understanding the effective difference between jurisdiction and substantive law. I try again to use as simple setting as possible: If one does not belong to a certain jurisdiction, (s)he will not be subjected to that jurisdiction's substantive law regarding her/his surname. Hope you sometime grasp that, otherwise it will be sad wrangling to tell further things to you... 217.140.193.123 2 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)

Dear Anon, I can see that you know nothing about conflict of laws or jurisdiction, but are simply trying to discredit more competent fellow editors by offensive rambling. Apparently you are not aware that courts will sometimes not apply there own law, but another country's law if conflict of law rules say they are applicable. "Belonging to a state" within the meaning of the German conflict of law rule cited above simply means citizenship. (Maybe I should have translated it as "of the state of which (s)he is a member"). Thus, if a German court deals with an Austrian national, it will look at Austrian law to find out what his name is. I find it rather hard to believe that US court would take a very different approach here with respect to Austrian nationals. In practice, they will probably ask him for his (Austrian) passport to prove his identity, which, of course, will not include any noble titles. Martg76 3 July 2005 07:02 (UTC)

Dear Martg, I see you apparently have become desperate. If you knew something about courts applying a foreign law, you'd know that such situation comes in civil disputes IF the parties have agreed to a certain (=foreign) law applied to their contract or transaction. Appliance of foreign law does not happen in non-contractual cases, such as surnames. The jurisdiction in the case you described (an Austrian citizen dealing in surname dispute in a foreign court) will be in all likelihood solved by statement by the court that it lacks jurisdiction to the name dispute - and in no foreseeable case will such court apply foreign law to that question. However, your basic problem seems to be that you want to extend Austrian law to control surnames of people who are not Austrian citizens, only by reason that their name is "of Austria" - and your such desire is doomed to be frustrated. If your Austrian court decides something in name dispute against one who lives outside Austria, the person is not obliged to comply to such "ambitious" decision as the court has lacked jurisdiction - however I would guess that against your desires, today the Austrian court in question will simply state it lacks jurisdiction. 217.140.193.123 3 July 2005 07:47 (UTC)

• Maybe you should read what I wrote before responding. I never claimed that Austrian law of surnames applied to anyone beside Austrian citizens. In fact, I was saying all the time that a person's surname is determined by the law of his/her citizenship, which you seemed not to agree with. My point with respect to Wikipedia policy was that the law of surnames of a particular country should create a (rebuttable) presumption for the Wikipedia page title of any citizen of that country. You have not explained what problem have with that proposal.

But, in actual fact, you claimed: "...if a German court deals with an Austrian national, it will look at Austrian law to find out what his name is..." - there you claim that German courts do apply Austrian law of surnames. However, there cannot, in all likelihood, be any case where a German court goes to decide such surname question. Your grasp of jurisdiction seems twisted. 217.140.193.123 3 July 2005 12:15 (UTC)

If you read your own citation of what I said again you will find out that I was referring only to Austrian citizens. This is not a question of jurisdiction, but of conflict of laws. Martg76 3 July 2005 12:53 (UTC)

• Your assertion that the application of foreign laws occurs only in contractual cases where parties have stipulated so is total hogwash with respect to continental European conflict of law rules. (I don't have the time to look up any others right now.) Just have a look at the statutes I cited above. (Maybe you could also provide some references for your claims?) Martg76 3 July 2005 09:44 (UTC)

Apparently you did not bother to read my (first) comments upon the subject. Hope you do not try to fabricate that I did not say "outside the country" etc, regarding the lack of jurisdiction. Using the example of Belgium. Etc - in many words. Hope you reinvigorate your reading skills.
I read your German and Austrian law citations and yet there is nothing to say that a foreign court needs to apply that substantive law on surnames. If you read any good books about international private law, you will see that courts tend to reject cases where a party requires application of a foreign law, if there is no stipulation of applicable law between the parties. The courts usually tell the party to go to the court in that country whose law they demand to be applied. As you seem to indicate that there are contrary cases, please tell such - now your assertions seem to be from thin air.
As to your tendency to claim the authority of law, and extend it, I sense a certain inheritance of thinking from German law system and its traditions. Several of others however do not think that law is answer to everything.217.140.193.123 3 July 2005 11:21 (UTC)

I make know claim to know what Belgium practice is. As to Germany, the answer in Art. 10(1) EGBGB is pretty clear: A person's name is determined by its citizenship. So, if German authorities follow their own law, they will address an Austrian national with his/her Austrian surname. In doing so, they are already applying Austrian law (of surnames) in a very simple way. Another case where courts may have to apply foreign law would be a property dispute over some object which has passed through various countries. Under the usual private international law rule, the acquisition of ownership is determined by the location of the property at the time when the (contested) acquisition of property took place. So, when some goods weere acquired in Spain and later shipped to Belgium, a Belgian court may have to look at Spanish law to find out whether ownership of the goods in Spain validly passed under Spanish law. The Belgian court would still have jurisdiction because the goods are now in Belgium, but Spanish law would be relevant to the case. (Choice of law is normally not possible in the law of property.) There are many cases such as this in private international law. But this is going too far away from the subject matter. Why don't you just name one of the "good books" you are referring to so I can verify your claim? Or even better, why don't you provide references to statutes or cases if you are such an expert?

I never claimed that "law is the answer to everything." I am only preoccupied with Wikipedia policy here, and I was just suggestion (read again) that the law of a person's citizenship could provide a good rebuttable presumption (i.e. a starting point) for what such person's page name should be. I hope you will avoid ad hominem arguments in the future, I will try to do so, too. I have had training in two very different legal cultures and am very much aware of differences in legal thought. So I hope we can come to an end of this rather ridiculous discussion. Martg76 3 July 2005 12:53 (UTC)

In your example case, the surname used by a German court has no res judicata regarding the person's surname. Therefore you cannot seriously claim that they use jurisdiction in that question. In reality, they just use the name the person has told the court. And you clearly cannot present an example where a German court goes to decide (i.e, to res judicata effect) what is an Austrian's surname.

That is what I was saying above -- they will simply use the name they see in the (Austrian) passport the Austrian citizen gives them to prove his identity. I agree on the res judicata issue. But apparently you don't contest that in this case Austrian law applies to that person's name. Martg76 3 July 2005 14:40 (UTC)

I agree that other than name issues (and jurisdiction to that) are too far from this talk page, therefore I have avoided to mix such examples here and will avoid.
As your legal training (the nature of which shows in your writings), it seems that even for that career you can benefit from learning to read a bit more carefully - despite all that is said about lawyers I still believe they could have use of some intellectual skills. 217.140.193.123 3 July 2005 13:29 (UTC)

Precision can help as all, and also references which one of us has refused to provide. Another good thing would be the avoidance of ad hominem arguments and more or less subtle offenses. Martg76 3 July 2005 14:40 (UTC)

Guys, let's calm down. A couple of points: 1) Most members of the Habsburg family probably aren't Austrian nationals. It should also be noted that Archdukes of Austria are also Princes of Hungary - what does Hungarian law say on the subject? 2) European monarchies often recognize pretenders by titles that are not recognized in their home countries. The former King of the Hellenes and his family are recognized by their full titles by his sister-in-law in Denmark, and by his brother-in-law in Spain, and by most of the other European monarchs, I believe. But certainly not by the government of Greece. Given that Constantine has a lot more contacts with the other monarchs of Europe than he does with the Greek republican government, mightn't we say that the former have more of a say here? 3) Legal names are not, I think, totally compelling in this particular instance. For instance, iirc, Italy, like Austria, has abolished noble titles. Nevertheless, nobles in Italy are known by their titles. If official law is inconsistent with every day practice, we should follow practice. After all, we do so on the other side - Michael Ancram's legal name is Michael Kerr, 13th Marquess of Lothian, but we have the article at the formal location. Same deal for stage names and pen names, and so forth. Beyond that, you guys need to calm down - this is a minor issue, and so far as I can tell, you're not even arguing about any specific cases. Why don't you wait a day to cool down, and then come back to this. john k 3 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)

I think we've already calmed down. Still, I would object to moving pages such as Karl Habsburg-Lothringen or John Gudenus who are exclusively referred to by their legal names in the Austrian media and are little known elsewhere. However, in cases where someone is equally notable in different countries, we may have to deal with pro-title or anti-title POV concerning the name of the Wikipedia entry. In such cases, the law (and practice) of the country of citizenship would be a relatively objective basis to decide upon. (BTW, there is actual German case law supporting my position on the recognition of Austrian law of surnames outside Austria, see BVerwG StaZ 1982, 277.) Martg76 4 July 2005 13:37 (UTC)

Martg - I don't disagree with you. But the key factor is that these people are known as Karl Habsburg-Lothringen and John Gudenus, not that these are their legal names. john k 4 July 2005 15:23 (UTC)

That is why I am merely suggesting a presumption (as stated three or four times in the discussion above). Martg76 4 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)

Women who married peers and thus received a title

(The sub-heading is intended to be precise, otherwise I would have written "Peeresses", or "Wives of peers")

I believe it suffices well Georgiana Spencer to be at Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire. Why is any of her surnames needed in the heading??? 217.140.193.123 1 July 2005 10:38 (UTC)

I support simplicity in headings. All messier stuff should be explained in the text - the heading is not the place to sort out a succession war or a sketchy lifecycle.

For consistency: Some starting points: I believe there is consensus and a STATED policy that male peers are basically firstname surname, ordinal title peeragename. Then a peeress suo jure should also be firstname surname, ordinal title peeragename.
Then, a nice thing to distinguish between peeresses suo jure and for example her daughter-in-law, the wife of the successor, would be a policy to deny the "surname" from peeresses by marriage: firstname, feminizedtitle peeragename. And of course not an ordinal
Regarding peeresses by marriage who are famous already before husband becomes peer, there firstly are those whose husbands inherit the peerage (such is perhaps a small number of encyclopedic women?), some of them apparently used the feminized courtesy title.
Mostly only those whose husbands got ennobled after a career (both known by husband's surname) are the relevant group of persons whose famousness is both by husband's surname and later by husband's peerage. Well, my suggestion for those wives is that they get here the policy of "firstname, feminizedtitle peeragename" as heading, and the text explains the names in different stages of life, AND a redirect links from page Mrs "firstname surname". It's just too bad if someone wants the husband's surname - anyway the USED names of those persons are a mess of developments, because, after all, it changed when the husband got peerage, and it also had changed (though usually not from a famous one) when the woman married and took the husband's surname.
This also serves simplicity, because it keeps one name away from the heading. And, it helps avoid problems due to battling which would be the correct surname: for example, an aristocrat female would possibly be "famous" under her pre-marital surname, an ennobled politician's wife by husband's surname. Let's avoid those.
As in my model, there are several differences between suo jure peeresses and wives of peers (i.e, lack of ordinal and lack of surname) is helps keep them as two distinct groups already through headings. 217.140.193.123 2 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)

Once again, I will note - some wives of peers are known by their married surname. It makes more sense to just have a policy of using the married surname than to try to distinguish when we should use it and when we shouldn't. So long as we have redirects, it shouldn't matter much. Simple rules can be more useful than simple article titles, and I think in this case there's not really any harm done. john k 3 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)

a pretender/ a crown princess

Of Isabella, the last regent of Brazil, there is discussion ongoing at Talk:Isabel of Brazil. Preferably comments there, not here. 217.140.193.123 4 July 2005 09:18 (UTC)

Some proposals for revisions

Hello all, these are proposals for revisions to our current policy largely worked out by Antares, in consultation with me over email. All thoughts are welcome. There were some others issues we've been discussing, but which haven't, I think, gotten to be the point of being ready to present yet. john k 7 July 2005 15:30 (UTC)

1. Non-european royal titles and titles of rulers that are difficult to translate may be used in their original name. Therefore it should be Genghis Khan and not Genghis or Temüjin, Reza Shah Pahlavi and not Emperor Reza Shah, Faisal bin Turki, Sultan of Muscat and Oman, Tipu Sultan, etc.

If the title is necessary, it could be thus used in the heading. The usual necessity is for disambiguation from someone with the same name. However, most titles are NOT necessary, and therefore should not be put into the heading at all. Thus, it suffices Genghis, Reza Pahlavi, Faisal bin Turki... 217.140.193.123 8 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)

Any policy which results in Genghis is a bad one. john k 8 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

Because he is universally known as Genghis Khan, and I can see no reason to adopt a policy that would force us to use a less commonly used version of his name. john k 8 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)

2. Non-european noble are listed with their native spelling, just like European nobility is listed with their titles. Therefore it is Jahanara Begum and not Princess Jahanara or Jahanara, Murasaki Shikibu and not Murasaki, Ratu Kamisese Mara, etc.

If the title is necessary, it could be thus used in the heading. The usual necessity is for disambiguation from someone with the same name. However, most titles are NOT necessary, and therefore should not be put into the heading at all. I ask why is it not ufficient to put Jahanara, Murasaki, Kamisese Mara, Tipu, Gong, Chun, Shotoku ??? 217.140.193.123 8 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)

Our articles are currently at Jahanara Begum and Tipu Sultan. What is wrong with those locations? These are how these people are normally called. john k 8 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)

Could you give reasons why in those cases title is needed? Or, would it be as distinct under simpler heading?217.140.193.123 8 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)

4. Historic nobility of Asia use the English-translated title that they have been most known under. The format is title first and then name. It is Prince Gong and not Gong, Gong (prince) or Gong, Prince, 2nd Prince Chun and not Chun or Chun (prince), as well Prince Shotoku and not Shotoku, Shotoku of Japan, or Shotoku (prince).

In many cases, title is unnecessary.217.140.193.123 8 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)

5. Non-European Royal Consorts (Imperial, royal, princely, etc.) are referred to by their full title, not by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title. The format is title, name(s), and country or territory. Just like Queen Sofía of Spain, it is therefore Empress Michiko of Japan and not Michiko Shoda or Michiko of Japan, as well as Queen Sirikit of Thailand and not Sirikit Kitiyakara, and so forth. The article’s name does not return to the consort’s maiden name after their death.

I would develop this towards a rule that an incumbent, living consort of monarch could follow the example of Queen Sofia of Spain, but that they revert to simpler versions after reign or after death. Usually without titles in headings.
"of Japan" is mostly unnecessary in those headings, and should be taken away.
Of some of those examples, I think Sirikit is sufficient, and possibly Michiko is sufficient (but not more than Empress Michiko should ever be needed).217.140.193.123 8 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)

6. Non-regnant Royalty (Imperial, royal, ruling princely, etc.) are listed with their title first, first name(s) and place of origin, family name or house. Just like Princess Victoria Alexandra of the United Kingdom, or Princess Louise, Princess Royal and Duchess of Fife, it is therefore Archduchess Sophie of Austria and not Sophie, Archduchess of Austria, Sophie of Austria, Archduchess Sophie, or Sophie. Similarly it is Princess Akishino of Japan, Prince Tomohito of Mikasa, Prince Hamzah of Jordan and not Hamzah of Jordan, Princess Ubol Ratana of Thailand, etc.

Most, if all, of those titles can be taken away from headings. In my opinion Princess Victoria Alexandra of United Kingdom is not a good example, as it is pompous. If that has been necessary for disambiguation needs, it nevertheless should not be regarded as the example. Louise. Duchess of Fife is certainly sufficient - I do not appreciate that someone has deemed it acceptable to make an anglocentric habit here to give Princess Royal without territorial designation to English princesses. Do you believe that they are the only Princesses Royal ever and anywhere?
I must question why Archduchess Sophie of Austria even deserves an article. Out of necessity to make Wikipedia as genealogy site, or what?
Formal titles such as Princess Akishino are not acceptable, as an effort shuld be made here to give her own name (too), not only her husband's name. We do not put Camilla here under heading Duchess of Cornwall.
And, also from demands of pre-emtive disambiguation, Princess Akishino is not acceptable, as there could very well be next princesses Akishino - remember that it is not a personal title. 217.140.193.123 8 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)

"Princess Royal" is, so far as I am aware, not a title generally used other than for British princesses. It is a specific title, and does not mean the same thing as "royal princess." Your demand to not use titles is very problematic, because it makes it impossible to distinguish between reigning monarchs who don't use ordinals and other members of their family. Victoria of the United Kingdom, for instance, could refer to Queen Victoria, to her eldest daughter, or to Edward VII's second daughter. john k 8 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)

Dear John, if you read carefully (or have you?), you will see that I have said to allow title in heading if necessary for disambiguation. These two first Victorias clearly are such case. And why should it determine what heading to put to persons who do not need such disambiguation? If we draw the policy on basis of the most complicated disambiguation need, we sooner or later have bio headings containing at least ten words. 217.140.193.123 8 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. The problem is, we have to weigh simplicty of naming against uniformity of naming. The way you propose to do it will ultimately result in articles on basically similar people with complete different titles due to differing needs of disambiguation. Furthermore, it will result in similar titles for people who are not similar. Alice of the United Kingdom certainly seems more analogous to Victoria of the United Kingdom than it does to Princess Victoria Alexandra of the United Kingdom, doesn't it? And yet Alice and Victoria Alexandra were both princesses, and Victoria was the queen. We shouldn't go completely overboard, but at the same time I see no reason that we should adopt a completely minimalist policy, either. Especially given that just adding "Princess" to the beginning of an article title is not terribly hard, and has been the default policy here for a long time. john k 8 July 2005 21:44 (UTC)

Queen Victoria should not be elevated as the basis for naming, as her name is basically an exception. She is one of the very few without ordinal. Therefore her "needs" shall not guide the naming policy.
re Alice, I was under impression that as she was not a royal consort, her heading would anyway be something else than Alice of United Kingdom - thud, please do not create false examples.
re Victoria, Empress Frederick, she was afaik a royal consort and should ne named respecting that policy, please. Her heading now is clumsy, ridiculous, pompous... 217.140.193.123 8 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)

I don't follow the logic. Princess Alice of the United Kingdom was a Princess of the United Kingdom, hence the location of the page. Empress Frederick, as is the norm, is referred to by her premarital title, Princess Victoria, Princess Royal. That again is normal. How is that "clumsy", or "ridiculous", much less "pompous"? And no, Queen Victoria is not an exception in English in not having an ordinal. I cannot see any logic in your argument. The only problem with it is that it sounds clumsy and repetitive to refer to the Princess Royal as Princess. Other than that there is no problem. FearÉIREANNFile:Tricolour.gifFile:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\^(caint) 9 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)

Even that Princess Victoria, Princess Royal is clumsy, as you agreed, chiefly because of that repetition. And strictly speaking, the naming standard does not allow that first "Princess" there. But, actually, I meant the Princess Victoria, Princess Royal and Empress Frederick (or something like) which seemed its heading last time I checked. There had been a renaming meanwhile (makes discussion a bit problematic if some -perhaps one party- goes around to rename - perhaps to prove a point). However, I canot regard "Princess Royal" an honest application of current policy, as I believe the pre-marital territorial designation should be honestly present.
re Alice, that's one option - but give me answer to: is there somewhere a policy that a Grand Duke's wife should revert to pre-marital name - cannot she be treated like a wife of a peer?
dear F.Eir, could you please make an effort to follow the logic. I would appreciate.
btw, please all notice that the point 6a) was atually added here by the famous Antares, not by (perhaps equally famous) John. 217.140.193.123 9 July 2005 06:20 (UTC)

Why are you getting abusive about this? I said at the beginning that these proposals were mostly worked out by Antares, with input from me over email. Antares put up 6a because I inadvertently left it out. As to Alice - by your suggestion, the article currently at Princess Alice of the United Kingdom should be at Alice of the United Kingdom. That is the rule that you want to apply. As to Grand Duchesses, that is completely unclear - we've never laid out a clear policy. john k 16:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I think I am not abusive over this. Have you possibly had too much abuse (as target and/or giver) during a few past days, if you so sense...
As the proposition SEEMED to come from you, and Antares nowhere even signed, I think it appropriate to remind who is behind certain things. People here even imagined that the proposition is made by you. You have to remember Antares' track in doing things... some others have even today received more examples of it. Now, after your explanation, we know much better about the origins of the proposition, then people can reason who is possibly window-dressing, who the progenitor, or whatever.
re Alice, I believe I have written "I was under impression that as she was not a royal consort, her heading would anyway be something else than Alice of United Kingdom - thus, please do not create false examples." Of course it would be good if the title is not needed there, but if it is needed, then so be it. Apparently its need is to make class-difference between queens and princesses (is there any other general need for that?). We need to consider if that is a sufficient reason to allow "princess" in headings.
should we think generally what to do with grand duchesses? 217.140.193.123 23:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The model "title, firstname, princedom" does not fit generally in use of many cases. We cannot think probably Princess Kikuko Akishino as it does not sufficiently correspond the usage, she should be Kikuko, Princess Akishino. And, there is no reasonable ground to try make an artificial difference between peers and such princes, as they mostly follow same uses in real world. We should not have Duke Richard of Gloucester... The number 6 requires more consideration and thinking, cannot be accepted as such. 217.140.193.123 23:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

6a) Note on Japanese Royalty: Members of the Imperial Family should be listed with their titular names, not their personal ones, as noted in protocol by the Kunaicho Imperial Household Agency. Example: Prince Mikasa and not Prince Takahito, Mikasa of Japan, Takahito of Japan, Mikasa or even Takahito.

No, such protocol should basically be abhorred here. (I suggest a support rule: no royal household protocol is to be literally applied here in naming.) We should thrive towards known personal names. I would develop such to direction which could be Takahito, Prince Mikasa.
Besides, Prince Mikasa is basically not a personal title or name, but will be inherited. Also because of that, I cannot accept. 217.140.193.123 8 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)

Any thoughts, anybody? john k 7 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)

I am doubtful about numbers 2 and 5. The rest seem quite acceptable. Deb 8 July 2005 12:00 (UTC)

My opinion is GENERALLY that the proposition above puts too much titulary for headings. Titulary is (usually) not necessary. Non-European people quite often have rather unique names, thus title is NOT needed for disambiguation purpose, which originally is the only reason why some titles have been allowed into headings. (I have condemned lengthening of headings because of so-called respect and I do not hesitate to liken that motive to sort of sycophancy, as it is that seen from encyclopedic view and from view which appreciates simplicity.) One of the principles which should control conventions on headings, is to keep them simple (cf the principle of KISS). I again remind of our usual readers and of seekers of information: they basically approach knowledge here wanting to know what means a simple name or concept. It is undue burden to them to put them under obligation to know beforehands whether a name (s)he wants to find info about, belongs to a queen or an actress, to someone officially "of Thailand" or whatever. A reader may have a word Sirikit (which is name), and when seeking by it, the results should be found out. That is the starting-point. -Now someone could say that all that can be taken care of by redirects. BUT, why make encyclopedia more burdened than is the simplest possible heading? Certainly not of motivation that the official court protocol uses something, and therefore it must (or should) be used here. (I leave that for etiquettemasters, for archchamberlains, for sycophants, and for titlefreaks.)
One unfortunate and undesired outcome of putting titles (first) into headings, is that when articles put into alphabetic order (as they go in several categorizing systems here), tend to flock into a mass - what is the value if everything is under the letter "K" because everyone's article begins by "King"??
I stress that the TEXT of the article is the place where the object's titularies, styles, and several other characteristics are explained (if of encyclopedic value).
Besides, basically all titles and styles can be regarded POV, as they sometimes are opposed by another group or groups in politics, religion, rivalry, etc. The good golden rule for all that is to explain it neutrally in the text and NOT endorse it "by Wikipedia". (That's the biggest reason why I oppose using style in the first line of a person, and support that styles are explained in the text.)
My some detailed comments are above immediately under the part of the proposition. 217.140.193.123 8 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)

Most titles, at least, are hardly POV. How is it POV to say that Louis XVI was King of France? He was King of France. Only in a few cases, and mostly with members of royal families long ago deposed, does this become even slightly an issue of POV. john k 8 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)

You should know that at that time, e.g George III of Great Britain officially regarded himself as King of France, and some millions of people honored him as such, some of them residing in the Channel Islands. Are we here to decide whose claim was better. We can easily say that Louis XVI held power in France and was establishedly regarded king over mainland French areas - and that's that. Of course I feel personally that he was rightful king of France, but the existence of claimants to almost everything in history is the reason why I generalized that "all titles" are POV - at least slightly. 217.140.193.123 8 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)

I think in that case we can very clearly say that the guy who was actually in Paris had the better claim. It was well known to everybody at the time that the claim of the King of Great Britain to the French throne was completely theoretical, and if anybody in Britain referred to the King of France, they were clearly referring to Louis XVI, not to George III. George III himself, and his ministers, I would suspect, referred to Louis XVI as the King of France, official titulary notwithstanding. The Channel Islands, although geographically part of France (sort of), were not ruled as "the Kingdom of France" but as the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey. You're really grasping at straws here. john k 16:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, well. You seem ready to approve one of the claims. I am not ready for such, due to NPOV ideology. Their claims should be explained in the text of their articles, and no endorsement of their titles and styles should be made - those should be explained in the article, not "used" by Wikipedia. - That's the reason I oppose e.g writing in articles for example in following way: "His Majesty started the war against... His Majesty was born ... and went to school in...". (btw, you might wish to endorse the overflowing use of HRH and Princess in article concocted by your new ally at Srinagarindra) 217.140.193.123 21:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to use the style of a monarch at the start and nowhere else. Where ever articles state "His Majesty started the war against... His Majesty was born ... and went to school in..." etc the style should be removed. Using styles that way is POV. Similarly links that say HM the Queen either in captions or in text, except in the opening sentences should have the HM deleted. We only use styles at the start of articles. (Only a handful of articles were written that way, largely by new users who were unaware of the correct naming conventions and manual of style here, and where found all the HMs, HRHs, HSHs, etc are being removed.) I hope that clarifies things.

FearÉIREANNFile:Tricolour.gifFile:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\^(caint) 21:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree that the style starts the article. I am of the opinion that Wikipedia should not endorse styles, and that can be seen as endorsement. In my opinion, style is explained in the text. E.g: "...was styled as HRH/ whatever". Even if the person was an undisputed monarch.
Does the style apply to other royals, too, or should I read the previous reply in a way "nowhere else than in monarchs, style is used"??
The same "explain, not use" should control re claims and pretensions and disputed monarchies/titularies. 217.140.193.123 00:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

(comment directly below by Mackensen unconnected with what I have just written, 
lest there be any confusion. JTDIRL) 

I feel comfortable with the above. I would also note the complaints voiced by the anon strike me as unnecessarily provocative without actually improving the debate. The only technical problem stated, categorization, is easily solved with intelligent piping–those of us who categorize peers do it every day. Mackensen (talk) 8 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)

Dear Mackensen, your opinion would be more appreciated, were you to make effort to go through all details discussed above. If course we are aware that if someone has made a long "law", it is easier to endorse than to work through. That behavioral pattern is one of reasons why for example a statutory law often contains unsatisfactory clauses. 217.140.193.123 8 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)

I agree with Deb. 2 and 5 are a problem. The rest are OK. FearÉIREANNFile:Tricolour.gifFile:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\^(caint) 8 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)

a sneak in the conventions text

If the following in the project page: "However, there has been one notable exeption. Shortly after King George VI died of lung cancer, on February 6, 1952, Elizabeth began to be styled "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother." This style was adopted because the normal style for the widow of a King, "Queen Elizabeth," would have been too similar to the style of her elder daughter, now Queen Elizabeth II. The alternative style "The Queen Dowager" could not be used because a senior widowed Queen, Queen Mary, the widow of King George V, was still alive."
were to be deleted, I would be interested to see who of users would be the one to try to bring it back (or revert). There seems to be an intriguing history of that "exception" sneaking into the text. 217.140.193.123 14:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

True. It was never debated. Now was there a consensus behind it. It just appeared and none of us spotted it. FearÉIREANNFile:Tricolour.gifFile:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\^(caint) 16:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

A proposal for addition

As there has been certain activity recently to pump Asian, Polynesian etc monarchies with headings full of wordiness, I believe it is necessary at this point to enact a new rule as follows: Non-"European" monarchs and royals do not need pre-emptive disambiguation by country ruled. 217.140.193.123 23:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, the "present" convention says: "These conventions do not apply to eastern civilizations. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)." It seems everyone is unaware of this. -- Taku 23:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, the present convention, saying "do not apply" has been no hindrance to persons who created overflowing headings, apparently believing that no policy applies to their verbose heading pursuit. A new clause basically saying "no country names" (as here proposed) should hinder such from putting two unnecessary words everywhere (the two being: of + countryname). As to Jp&Ch-related manuals, there is no clear instruction re avoidance of unnecessary sycophancy. 217.140.193.123 00:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's avoid words like sycophancy. If it says at the moment that the conventions don't apply to eastern monarchies, that seems sufficient. john k 18:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

an exercise to naming

As I faced the question, I hereby present here the case of Märtha of Sweden (I have no serious doubts that the article should eventually be under that heading) - this is perhaps a sort of exercise how to apply the clever naming conventions there is in place at the moment.

There has been one to remind When dealing with a Crown Prince/ss of a state, use the form "{name}, Crown Prince/ss of {state}" unless there is a clear formal title awarded to a prince which defines their status as crown prince (eg, 'Charles, Prince of Wales', 'Felipe, Prince of Asturias', etc). However, I am sure that everyone sees easily that is intended only to a crown princess suo jure, such as Victoria of Sweden. And also, it may be valid to a living crown princess consort (such as Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark), cf the case of Queen Sophia of Spain.

The said Märtha is now dead and was a consort, different rule applies.
However, as she died before her husband ascended the throne (and she was not queen consort consequently), it COULD be a twisted case. Had she been a queen consort, she will be at Märtha of Sweden unquestionably.

My opinion is based on that option: I regarded her as equivalent of queen consort - she was at least a royal consort, to whom the same rule seems to be applied quite often, if always.

However, a case could be made that as crown princess consort, she should be treated like Princess Alice of United Kingdom who was grand duchess consort but never a queen, thus Märtha would be Princess Märtha of Sweden.

I vote for the simpler of these two - i.e, for Märtha of Sweden.

Those who for a reason or another would like to dub crown princess consorts equivalent with crown princesses suo jure, would make "Märtha, Crown Princess of Norway".

An ardent iconoclast would like to have Märtha Bernadotte.

And, then, there could be certain very respectful (would I say another word describing that) persons who would presumably want the heading Her Royal Highness Princess Märtha Sofia Lovisa Dagmar Thyra Bernadotte of Sweden and Westrogothia, Her Royal Highness The Crown Princess of Norway or something pompous-like equivalent :))

Please have a nice chat reasoning how to apply naming conventions to her and what would be the most correct heading here. 217.140.193.123 16:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Russian consorts

As this was not signed, I believe the content of this proposal was intended for editing. And, it could be counterproductive to include (other) sorts of eastern consorts, so I take that part away. 217.140.193.123 23:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

That was unintentional, but I now realize Jtdirl was referring to Far Eastern/Asian monarchies, so you're correct in removing it from the discussion here. Thanks. Choess 00:33, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Since the issue of "Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse" has come to the fore again, I suggest we carry through the previous discussion of Russian consorts and their naming to a consensus that can be written into the naming conventions, so the issue isn't re-argued with each additional consort.

Background: Consorts of the Russian tsars were required to convert to Russian Orthodoxy before marriage into the imperial house, and generally took a new Christian name when doing so. This gives them two forenames (their original name, and the one adopted upon conversion) and two territorial designations (pre- and post-marital). Therefore, it may be wise to use alternative naming rules for them, as compared to other European consorts. Choess

There seem to have been (three) four alternatives floated in the previous discussion:

1. Birth name without title, that is, the original form of the pre-marital name.
   • Pro: Consorts are easily disambiguated.
   • Con: The birth name is often less well-known in English than the post-conversion name.
2. Combination of post-conversion forename (including patronymic) and pre-marital territorial designation.
   • Pro: Uses the more recognizable English forename and is easily disambiguated.
   • Con: While the forename may be familiar to English users, rarely if ever works of reference nor common usage in English use the combination form / they mostly use post-marital name.
3. Imperial style (Title, post-marital forename, post-marital territorial designation), disambiguating by years of reign or by pre-marital name.
   • Pro: corresponds most closely to common English usage, e.g., "Empress X Y of Russia".
   • Con: because consorts sometimes took the same name, requires a long title and parenthetical disambiguation, and is against consistency in other European usage, literally sisters of these same ladies.
4. Combination of post-conversion forename (without patronymic) and pre-marital territorial designation.
   • Pro: Uses the more recognizable English forename and is often easy to disambiguate, but not always.
   • Con: she was not born with that name.

Further opinions on the above, or other alternatives for naming, are solicited.

Either two or three would be acceptable to me. I don't see how it is defensible to have an article about Empress Marie at "Dagmar of Denmark." That is not only a violation of most common name policy, it is actually, I think, spitting in the eye of the most common name policy. john k 04:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think I'd favor option three, on largely the same grounds. (Although I'd demur on option two; at least in the case of Alexandra/Alix, the "option two" name has almost zero circulation, even compared with "option one".) Choess 04:36, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Possibly true, except that often times the "option 1" names for various famous non-Russian consorts also have similar circulation. Elisabeth of Bavaria? But I think I'd prefer option 3, as well. Disambiguation could be a bitch, though. john k 04:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Actually, amend my earlier statement above. "Alexandra Feodorova of Hesse" is virtually zero, but "Alexandra of Hesse" is not so uncommon. I'll have to think about that. A quick canvass of the tsars suggests that the disambiguation problem may not be so bad: we have two "Alexandra Feodorovnas" and two "Maria Feodorovnas," but that seems to be it. Choess 05:48, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

For me, 2 and 4 are both out because they are not real names, but a made-up compromise. I would be satisfied with either 1 or 3. Deb 17:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Same here, for the same reasons. 2 and 4 are out IMHO. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The names Charlotte of Prussia and Alix of Hesse for Russian Empresses look so ridiculous and unrecognizable, that all this logic about "common rules to follow" falls apart. There is no common rule for names around the globe. Even articles for rivers are called direfently: Rhine vs Volga River vs River Don, and you want have names of extremely prominent persons to replace with some obcsure abstract constucts. mikka (t) 20:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I’m not an expert, neither I’m very interested in this topic, but sometimes an outsider’s opinion may help :) These persons won their right to be in this encyclopedia mostly by being Empresses of Russia, and thus their articles should be named by their post-conversion names. I don’t see why to make a big deal about these article names, when a few redirects could solve all the problems. When it comes to voting, I think that the best choice would be 2 or 4. Disambiguating by years seems silly (if I know so much about a person – why looking up at Wikipedia :) -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 01:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Only a couple of Russian Empresses would need to be disambiguated by year. There were a couple of Marie Feodorovnas and a couple of Alexandra Feodorovnas. The other names are Elizabeth Feodorovna and Marie Alexandrovna, which are not repeated. As to years, there would also be a disambiguation page at the main page, to direct people. In terms of option 2 and 4 being "not real names," I'm not sure what this means. Conversions happened before marriage, which means that for at least a few days, these ladies were "Princess Alexandra of Hesse and by Rhine" and so forth, weren't they? Even beyond this, they retained their old titles after marriage, so that as Empress, Alexandra remained a Princess of Hesse and by Rhine. Do you think that Anne of Austria and Catherine of Aragon (as opposed to Anna of Austria and Catalina of Aragon) are also artificial constructs? john k 03:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

"A few days" is rather a thin reed to put our collective weight on, wouldn't you say, especially if we're trying to uphold the "most common" name? To make things a little more confusing, this page quotes from the "Times" (of London, I presume), which still refers to her as "Princess Alix" post-conversion but pre-marriage. I'm not sure the other examples are quite germane; those are the same name expressed, as it were, in different languages, whereas the conversion ceremony could entail a complete change of name. According to these comments (scroll down), Alix/Alexandra had originally wanted to take the name "Jekaterina Alexejevna"; so the (closely coupled) conversion and marriage could entail a complete change of forename. Choess 05:32, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

You should remember that she was "of Hesse" also during the marriage, and that to some people, she was always more "of Hesse" than "of Russia". Arrigo 09:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would be of some weight to respect the first name she herself accepted and assumed, instead of that her parents had given. Wouldn't you use "Marilyn Monroe" instead of whatever it was, and also same in cases someone officially changed one's personal name. Arrigo 09:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I think number 2 will be the best solution to this vexed question. It has better disambiguation potential than number 4. Also I can accept number 4. However, I remind that with number 4, we could end up having Maria of Denmark among a bunch of other Marias of Denmark, whereas when using patronymic, there will be only one Maria Fedorovna of Denmark - and correspondingly to all those Alexandras of Prussia, Elisabeths of Baden, Marias of Wurttemberg, Maries of Hesse, etc. I believe that option 2 and 4 were actually their real names (contrary to some allegations here), and using them, we would not be violating any rule against "non-real name". These ladies were (at least briefly) "Princess Alexandra Fedorovna of Hesse and by Rhine" and similar. Arrigo 09:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)