Talk:Anthony Brooke

Succession and notability

Does anyone know who the Rajah's successor shall be? If so please contribute (Couter-revolutionary 11:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC))

Since there is no Rajah, and the succession has been formally renounced, I do not think it appropriate to use this box format at all. Ming the Merciless 18:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because He has renounced his claim it doesn't mean He has done this on behalf of his descendants. If the Rajah of Sarawak is restored, however unlikely that is, it shall be one of Anthony Brooke's descendants to take the Throne. There should, therefore, be a succession box for the head of the House of the White Rajah. --Couter-revolutionary 18:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This monarchy no longer exists. --SandyDancer 01:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Really, you have been through this argument on other articles and you have failed. If you are going to deny titles to Anthony Brooke then this page is not even notable enough to exist; and it shall be a sad day if it is deleted due to those with a PoV.--Couter-revolutionary 10:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

To give obsolete titles as though they were current is potentially offensive to the "claimant" if they have formally renounced the claim, and it is potentially offensive to the modern inhabitants of the territory, implying that there might be an active movement to subvert their present government. I am a monarch(ist), but to me, it appears to reflect some kind of extreme aristocratic POV to suppose that no title can ever be formally and finally extinguished if a notional heir survives. However, I am slightly happier with the new box giving the title as "Titular Rajah of Sarawak". Ming the Merciless 10:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

On his own website he says "Today he is plain Anthony Brooke of Wanganui. But once he was Rajah Muda of Sarawak." Why therefore is he referred to in the opening para of the article as being the Rajah Muda. I am changing this on that basis and per. Ming's comments. Couter-Rev, I expect you to disagree but please bear in mind there is a real difference here between Brooke and ex-monarchs/heirs of ex-monarchs who still claim and have not renounced their titles.

To use an analogy, would you ever refer to Tony Benn by his former aristocratic title? --SandyDancer 10:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• "Tony Benn" disowned his aristocratic title by an act of legislation, it is different. Brooke has the Royal title granted by the Sovereign state of Sarawak, the Royal family of which he was a member. He may well have decided he prefers not to be know by his title but naming conventions of Wikipedia, which we must follow, states all royals are to be known by their highest ruling title. I am thus reverting the change to comply with Wikipedia standards. Some users have attempted, with other exiled Royals, to attempt to do what you are doing now and have not succeeded due to the strict conventions of Wikipedia. The only case where he can be know other than by his title was, say, if he had been a famous politician &c. He is not, and is only notable due to his Royal title.--Couter-revolutionary 11:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

PS. You say what this article is doing is implying that "that no title can ever be formally and finally extinguished if a notional heir survives." This isn't true. It is merely using the title which he held and by which he is known most commonly. Anthony Brooke is not notable but the Rajah Muda of Sarawak it. --Couter-revolutionary 11:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

all royals are to be known by their highest ruling title, but since Sarawak is no longer a monarchy, Anthony Brooke is no longer a "royal", and unlike some European ex-royalty, he does not expect or receive an honorary title as an ex-royal. Ming the Merciless 12:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Your argument makes no sense. His highest ruling title, under Sarawak's monarchy, was Rajah Muda and he should be known as such. Besides, the situation has been resolved.--Couter-revolutionary 12:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

C-R, Your assertion that Brooke isn't notable is just plain wrong. Of course he is notable - he is notable because he was Rajah Muda. The fact he is no longer doesn't extinguish his notability for past deeds and positions held. --SandyDancer 13:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Have we not been through all this? Why drag it up again? --Couter-revolutionary 13:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because I, who knew nothing of any previous discussion, thought there was something wrong with how these entries were presented. Ming the Merciless 17:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's just wrap this up then. This gentleman is notable because of the position he once held; his offspring are not automatically notable because the monarchy no longer exists. --kingboyk (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone appears to be logging in as "JDA Brooke", and editing articles. I have no idea who this is but I am Jason Desmond Anthony Brooke and it is a bit confusing I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonbrooke (talk • contribs) 12:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Jason recently you visited Sarawak. I saw you during Sarawak Regatta at Kuching Waterfront. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.5.168 (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Title claim makes no sense

I came here because, reading the article, I saw that the statements to the effect that Mr. Anthony Brooke has the title "Rajah of Sarawak" make no sense and wanted to note that on this talk page. When Rajah Vyner ceded Sarawak to the British Crown, as was his sovereign right, the title effectively ceased to exist, so it could not have passed to someone else upon his death. Now sometimes there are pretenders who cannot accept that a title ceases to exist, but in this case the one-time designated successor had already renounced all claims in 1951, prior to Vyner's death in 1963. So if there is a title "in pretence", it is solely the pretence of the editor who put in this title in this article.  --Lambiam 09:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Lambian. In the above paragraph you state that Vyner ceded Sarawak to the British Crown "as was his sovereign right". However, it should be noted that in 1941 Vyner in fact granted and enacted for Sarawak a written constitution which altered his status to that of constitutional monarch, and thus he relinquished his legal ability to cede the country. The cession was thus constitutionally illegal, and a violation of the rules of succession as outlined in Rajah Charles Brooke's Political Will. When Vyner ceded the country illegally, and relinquished his title, he did in fact legally abdicate, rather than extinguish the monarchy. Thus, the Raj de jure passed to his brother Bertram, and through him to Anthony. As Anthony relinquished his claim to the title in 1951, the title de jure would pass to James Bertram Lionel, Anthony's son. This is of course an academic matter, as the Brooke's are no longer recognised as sovereigns in Sarawak, but it is false I think to claim legally that the titles cease to exist. Were the English Queen to attempt to cede her country to Ireland, and renounce her titles, she would of course be viewed as abdicating, and her title would pass to Prince Charles. The only difference in Sarawak is that the British had the power to simultaneously annex the country in breach of international law, and ban the Brooke's from returning. Matthew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewdarce (talk • contribs) 17:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthony Walter Dayrell Brooke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102151259/http://store.omegapub.com:80/servlet/-strse-52/We-Rubies-Four-scln--The/Detail to http://store.omegapub.com/servlet/-strse-52/We-Rubies-Four-scln--The/Detail

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)