Talk:Dynastic union

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Examples

To prove its independent value, this article could really use some examples of the term "dynastic union" being used in WP:RS with regard to something that is not also a personal union. I quickly browsed the Google and Google Scholar search results for "dynastic union" without finding any such example. The concept, as defined in the article now, is of course a valid one (Denmark, Norway and formerly Greece would be one obvious example), but is it really ever used this way? -- Jao 05:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish addition does not seem to have improved the situation. Before their respective accessions, the term as defined here would not apply (them not being heads of state), and afterwards, it was a personal union. The given source also does not use the phrase. If it's really this difficult to find examples of non-PUs being referred to as dynastic unions, I begin to seriously think that our definition is off and "dynastic union", when used outside Wikipedia, is synonymous with "personal union". It may also be, of course, that "dynastic union" can refer to an actual joining of two dynasties by marriage, in which case the Spanish example is exactly on the mark but the article's introduction wrong. -- Jao (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were not heads of state, but on the marriage they agreed what would happen once they would ascend to the throne. The marriage was also planned with the purpose of performing the union. Dunno about the correctness of the introduction. Notice that I listed here the union of Aragon and Catalonia, but I also listed the son that inherited the titles on Personal_union#Aragon.2C_Crown_of --Enric Naval (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

one example that I don't know how to include

per Payne's source a dynastic union that culminated on Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor inheriting from four different dinasties, but I don't know the details. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This source [1] could be useful to find a pair of examples (you need to check "search on libro" and then click on search). Sorry for not doing it myself right now --Enric Naval (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

France & Spain / England & Scotland

Would England & Scotland really be considered a dynastic union if they had the same monarch? (James VI/I, Charles I, Charles II, and James VII/II)

Also, after the War of Spanish Succession, Spain adopted a Bourbon king under the terms that France and Spain would not have the same king and thus become a personal union. Would this be considered a dynastic union? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.63.50 (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And then there were three....

A dynastic union is limited to two monarchies because....? Sorry, I don't see what this article is about. I also see that the article personal union has a lot of the same definitional problems. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dynastic vs personal unions

Unless I’m wrong, once there is only one monarch in control of the kingdoms, it becomes a personal union. This would surely mean that Scotland and England would have been a personal Union rather than a dynastic union. Please do correct me if I’m wrong, but if not then I will change this soon. Vesuvio14 (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a personal union to me, indeed. Same goes for France and Navarre, in fact. Keriluamox (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]