From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Royalty and Nobility
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Royalty and nobility 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.

List of pretenders forked[edit]

I have deleted the Modern pretenders and created a new list at List of current pretenders. Please discuss these new changes on that talk page. Cheers, Nightw 07:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Austria and Hungary[edit]

Isn't Otto's son Charles, now the pretender? Otta has given up the headship of their House. GoodDay (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Do you have any sources to show? Nightw 07:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Only the sources at Otto's article. GoodDay (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

How about Arthur I of Brittany?[edit]

He really had the rightful claim, and his actions also suggested he wanted the English throne.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


'The term pretender is applied to those persons on whose behalf a claim to a throne is advanced, regardless of whether that person himself actually makes an active claim.' This section of the definition has a note from 2007 requesting a citation. This statement can easily be disputed. The throne of India no longer exists, but Elizabeth II can by no means be classed a pretender to the Indian throne. The thrones of Austria and Hungary no longer exist, but Otto von Habsburg cannot be named as a pretyender, especially as he has particularly renounced those thrones. 'On whose behalf a claim to a throne is advanced' is troublesome. How many advocates make a pretender? A few nutjobs or a significant minority of a population? I'm going to remove the sentence unless someone can restore it with a suitable citation. I realise this will be problematic for a number of articles, but surely we can rise to the challenge.Gazzster (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As you noted, removal of this sentence essentially leaves the term not only unsourced, but completely undefined -- yet with an article, detailed national histories and an ever growing list of examples. The definition needs refinement not omission -- but also a reality-check: it is almost a defining characteristic of genuine pretenders that they do not refer to themselves as such (either because they do not accept that their "reign" is non-existent de facto or, more often, because they deem it {pardon the pun} pretentious and/or absurd to assert a role for themselves that has little likelihood of advancing from de jure to de facto). Rather, pretenders leave it to others to describe them as such, directly or by such euphemisms as "claimant", "dynastic heir" or "head of house" (none of which terms has any single legal definition either, outside of the house laws of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Principalities of Liechtenstein and Monaco, but they are preferred because their vagueness evokes other meanings which overlap with the meaning of "pretender"). Yet there is more clarity than you acknowledge or than your edit reflects: "persons on whose behalf a claim to a throne is advanced" will not include Elizabeth II as "Empress of India" in most reputable historical and current sources which track those who (under a past regime or law which some constituents, historians, published authorities or journalists deem unconstitutionally or fraudulently overturned), as an ex-monarch or a descendant thereof, held or would hold the prerogative to reign by hereditary right. Whereas such sources (e.g., the Almanach de Gotha published for nearly 200 years by Justus Perthes, "Monarchs in Waiting" by Walter Curley, "Burke's Royal Families of the World" edited by Hugh Montgomery-Massingberd, "Les prétendants aux trônes d’Europe" by Joseph Valynseele, etc.) do include, for instance, Michael of Romania, Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia. Since Wikipedia does not judge the legitimacy of political claims, it is irrelevant whether a large or small number of people advance a pretender's claim so long as that claim is, in some form, recognized by and documented in reliable sources, Jimbo's argument to the contrary notwithstanding. Nor should coverage in the popular press, if meeting WP's editorial standards, be invariably dismissed. For instance, a widely-read periodical recently published an article that reflected research, editorial review and interviews with the subject accurately and neutrally reporting that France has four generally recognized "pretenders" (omitting the Naundorff claim, which has been DNA-debunked and represents impostorship rather than pretendership) and described them, one in depth. Treating all pretenders as false or non-existent in this survey article would place Wikipedia in the unworthy position of carrying substantial articles on such notorious fakes as Anna Anderson, Charles Naundorff, Princess Caraboo, Kaspar Hauser, Maria Pia, Alexis Brimeyer, Michel Roger Lafosse and Terence Francis MacCarthy -- all of whom became "notable" for pretending to be pretenders -- while refusing to provide minimal coverage on or to distinguish between impostors and those whose family legacy genuinely includes a claim to an historical throne. FactStraight (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
you raise a good point. I think the point that is trying to be made in the article, is that not all pretenders are actively seeking their throne. Really the term though is applied to heirs, and people who have a claim regardless of whether or not it is advanced. Although many make a claim by using a title of pretense. Such as the Prince of Prussia, who by using this title asserts himself as heir, but does not seek the throne. However, I do not see why Elizabeth II can't be seen as pretender to the imperial throne of India? I guess the question is an heir different than a pretender? (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
How can this be ? The word "pretend" is a verb. If a person has not made a (serious) claim to a throne, title or other position how can he or she be termed a "pretender" ? And how is what other people may or may not have done while claiming (jokingly or in earnest) to be acting on ones behalf be even relevant ? Even claiming to be a descendent (based on the rather dubious presumption that all ones forebearears have been faithful to their spouses) of a deposed king does not necessarily make one a claimant to an actual throne ? (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

English republican point of view[edit]

"After the execution of Charles I in 1649, his son Charles II became pretender until his restoration 11 years later."

Charles was crowned King of Scotland, so not a pretender in Scotland. -- PBS (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Chinese pretenders[edit]

Would anyone mind if I added Chinese pretenders? Perhaps the movie The Last Emperor make them at least somewhat notable. Kauffner (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)