Talk:Latin Emperor

Problems with Article Names

Why are the monarchs of the Latin Emperor not listed under their regnal names like literally every other monarch and noble on Wikipedia? I checked and it seems that somebody in 2005 attempted to move the articles to their appropriate names, but another person moved them back because they didn't like those names. Only Baldwin I of Constantinople and Baldwin II of Constantinople currently go by their regnal names, which is strange because the former was the only Latin Emperor to also be a count, which according to the current scheme should be his primary titles.

I propose that the following three articles be renamed to stay consistent with Wikipedia's standards regarding regnal titles:

• Henry of Flanders to Henry of Constantinople
• Peter II of Courtenay to Peter of Constantinople
• Robert of Courtenay to Robert of Constantinople

The following two individuals did not rule in Constantinople, but were still recognised by Latin territories in Greece. Therefore, they still deserve the titles:

• Catherine of Courtenay to Catherine I of Constantinople
• Catherine of Valois (1303-1346) to Catherine II of Constantinople

All rulers thereafter have questionable titles to the throne and also have other, more significant titles to their names and thus do not require renaming. I believe for the names above, that these new titles will be better in identifying the individuals and most of them are actually more accurate titles for the individuals since they represent what the individuals themselves saw themselves as and what the larger European population saw them as. Using the current titles does not recognise this fact and is anachronistic, reflecting only modern historical perceptions. Please let me know what you think. I will begin moving the articles in a few weeks if there is no compelling reason not to move them.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 03:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Was it me who moved them back? It probably was. It seems weird to call people "Peter of Constantinople" on Wikipedia when no one actually calls him that in real life. We have the same problem with the kings of Jerusalem - for example, currently we have Guy of Lusignan and not "Guy of Jerusalem". The latter would fit Wikipedia's naming conventions, but Wikipedia's conventions can be overruled by the conventions in academic literature. Do historians ever call these guys "of Constantinople"? Adam Bishop (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm working through some documents right now and I'll try to figure out precisely what these people are called in academic sources. I think they were generally called Peter, Latin Emperor or Peter, Emperor of Romania, or, more controversially, Peter, Roman (or Byzantine) Emperor. Unsurprisingly, none of them are satisfactory, but neither is calling him Peter II of Courtenay. Perhaps the whole lot of them need to be renamed something more consistent and accurate entirely. I vote for "Latin Emperor" since that is the most appropriate historical name for the empire (and why the article on it is named that). I'm reading a number of primary sources of the 13th century and the ruler was universally called the "Emperor of Constantinople" in those sources, which I don't think should be discounted. I checked the Byzantine Emperors and they are generally just given their name, but western rulers are generally given their highest functional title, so there's an inconsistency there that probably should be looked into. If we decide to keep the current system of names, then Baldwin I needs to be renamed to match his title in Flanders rather than his eastern title.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 22:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S. It was you who moved it 10 years ago. I just confirmed.

P.P.S. I just realised that you are actually incorrect about the kings of Jerusalem. Only kings consort are listed by non-regnal names, people like guy of Lusignan. All legitimate monarchs in their own right are listed as "of Jerusalem", so it is consistent across the board. For that same reason, I did not include in my list above a number of kings consort such as the spouses of either Catherine, or the queens regent. They had the titles and executed the position, but their statuses were dependent on their spouses or children, not their own right to the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whaleyland (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that is true. Well, in that case I wouldn't oppose moving the articles this time. But maybe leave them for a few more days, and hopefully some other people will comment here as well. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the entire series to Name, Latin Emperor or Name, Latin Empress and corrected the intros to each article to note that while they never ruled in Constantinople, they still held recognised marginal authority over the Crusader States in Greece. I did not change the emperors after Catherine II since their titles of "Prince of Taranto" held more actual authority than their titles as Latin Emperors. However, I did create redirects for all of them, as well as for Charles of Valois. Finally, I renamed the James de Baux article to James, Prince of Taranto, since his article title did not follow proper naming conventions for recognised monarchs on Wikipedia. The Latin Emperor article and its accompanying template have also been thoroughly relinked, with numerals added beside names where necessary. Overall, I think this will increase the knowledge of the role the Latin Emperor had in politics after the reconquest of Constantinople and it will also highlight the heirs to that legacy into the 1380s in better detail than had previously been emphasised.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 03:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)