Talk:Royal house

What happened to noble houses?

Noble houses/dynasties dont have their own page, why ever not? They arent even mentioned on this page! Noble houses are almost, if not as important, as royal houses! Does anyone have a reason for their entire exclusion from wikipedia? --Camaeron (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question, I was under the impression that the ruling house in Portugal at the time of their deposition was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha?

--Dudeness10 16:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No as the article House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha says. The last four Portuguese kings used the term Braganza to refer to themselves rather than Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha which is used by others outside Portugal.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure the Austria description is correct. Dr. Otto von Hapsburg signs his name as such, not as Habsburg-Lothringen. I believe the name of the ruling house of Austria was Habsburg-Lothringen (or Habsburg-Lorraine in English) for the descendants of Francis of Lorraine and Maria Theresia of Austria, as House names are usually changed when the succession is through a female - but as a surname, it's just plain von Hapsburg/Habsburg. This is a case where the House name as usually given (just plain Habsburg) isn't technically correct, like the "House of Romanov" -- Someone else 23:53 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Toying with these here before adding to article, as much has to be worked out and it is "neater" if it's done here. Many of the surnames are seldom if ever actually used: "The members of many royal houses use surnames so rarely that their surnames, if any, cannot be discerned with certainty."

Belgium
- house: Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? Wettin?
- surname:
Denmark
- house: Glücksborg; Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksborg?
- previous houses: Oldenburg
- surname:
Liechtenstein
- house: Liechtenstein
- surname:
Luxembourg
- house: Nassau
- surname:
Monaco (serene, not royal)
- house: Grimaldi
- surname: Grimaldi
Netherlands
- house: Orange-Nassau; Oranje-Nassau
- surname: titles and surnames individually set by decree; presumably van Amsberg for most of the current queen's children
Norway
- house: Glücksborg
- surname:
Spain
- house: Borbón
- surname: Borbón ?
Sweden
- house: Bernadotte
- surname: Bernadotte
United Kingdom
- house: Windsor
- previous houses: Plantagenet, Lancaster, York, Tudor, Stuart, Hanover, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
- surname: Mountbatten-Windsor
- previous surnames: Guelph, Welf...

deposed and pretending:

Austria:
- house: Habsburg-Lothringen
- surname: Habsburg; head of house is "von Habsburg"; many use no surname
Bavaria:
- house: Wittelsbach
- surname:
France: (royal)
- house: Bourbon-Orléans
- surname: often use 'France' as surname
France: (Imperial)
- house: Bonaparte
- surname:
France: (Legitimist)
- house: Borbón-Parma
- surname:
Germany:
- house: Hohenzollern
- surname:
Greece:
- house: Gluckberg or Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg?
- surname: Oldenberg?
Hungary:
- house: Habsburg-Lothringen
- surname:
Italy:
- house: Savoy
- surname:
Rumania:
- house: Hohenzollern
- surname:
Russia:
- house: usually given as Romanov but technically Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov
- surname: used Romanov [m] or Romanova [f]

Question: I thought Bourbon, not Orleans, is the Legitimist name, as in those who insist that someone other than the Comte de Paris is the true pretender, ie those who in the 19th century backed the Comte de Chambord ('Henry V'), But then Legitimists were divided between those who backed the Comte de Paris as next in line after Chambord's death, and those who insisted 'absolutely not' and now see some Spanish man as the 'real' heir. So did you mean Legitimist in the 19th century sense or in the sense of the majority of modern French monarchists, who back the current Comte de Paris? (God I thought the Irish Famine was complicated!!!) Maybe, as most people who follow the complicated history of French royalism would know it through the disputes over heirs to Charles X and Louis-Philippe, we should use 'Legitimist' and 'Orleanist' in their nineteenth century meaning? (Except of course, the Orleanist pretender is the legitimate pretender to the majority of royalists. Aaaaagh. Even I'm confused now!) JTD 20:01 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

I agree, three French kings is too many and it makes me numb too, You are right of course about Bourbon. (One reason I put this stuff here was so the "good guys" could check it first<G>.) It occurs to me that another way to present this would be by houses. When I tried to find surnames it seems to me even more true that [1] most of these houses really have no "official" surname, and [2] even if they have one, it's never used. But if you (or anyone) can fill in any surnames I'd be very happy to learn them!. As you'll see below, I really need to get my French & Nassau refs out -- Someone else 00:27 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Houses
name - surname - rank - rules - once ruled - name used
Zogu - Zogu - royal - - Albania
Ascania - - ducal - - Anhalt
Habsburg-Lorraine - Habsburg - imperial - - Austria
Zähringen - - grand-ducal - - Baden
Wittelsbach - - royal - - Bavaria
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha - - royal - Belgium -
Bonaparte - Bonaparte - imperial - - France
Borbón - Bourbón-Orléans - royal - - France - Count of Paris
Borbón - Bourbón-Parma - ducal - - Parma - Duke of Parma
Borbón - Bourbón-Two Sicilies - royal - - Two-Sicilies - Duke of Calabria
Orléans-Bragança - - imperial - - Brazil - Prince of Orléans & Bragança
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha - - royal - - Bulgaria -

Houses with subhouses

Ascania
- Anhalt
  - Saxe-Lauenburg
  - Saxe-Wittenberg
- Anhalt-Dessau
- Anhalt-Bernburg
- Anhalt-Köthen
  - Plotzkau
  - Anhalt-Zerbst

Capet
- 1st house of Burgundy
  - house of Portugal
  - house of Montagu
    - house de Couches
  - house de Viennois
- house of Vermandois
  - House of Chaumont
- house of Dreux
  - House of Bretagne
    - house of Machecoul
  - House of Beu
House of Courtenay
House of Artois
1st house of Anjou
Bourbon
- Bourbon-La March
  - Bourbon-Vendome
    - 2nd house of Bourbon-Montpensier
    - Bourbon-Conde
    - Bourbon-Orleans
      - Orléans-Bragance
      - Orléans-Galliera
    - Bourbon-Anjou
  - Bourbon-Carency
- 1st house of Bourbon-Montpensier
Valois
- Alençon
- 2nd House of Anjou
- 2nd House of Burgundy
- Valois-Orléans
  - Valois-Angoulême
House of Evreux

Habsburg
- Habsburg-Lorraine
- Tuscany (grand dukes)
- Teschen (dukes)
- Palatines of Hungary

Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg
- Glücksburg
- Oldenburg

Lorraine-Brabant
- Hesse (Landgraves of Hesse)
- Hesse-Cassel
  - Hesse-Philippsthal
    - Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld
- Hesse-Darmstadt
  - Hesse-and-by-Rhine

Holstein (Oldenburg)
- Holstein-Sonderburg
  - Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg
  - Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksborg
- Holstein-Gottorp
  - Holstein-Gottorp
  - Oldenburg

Lippe
- Lippe
- Lippe-Weissenfeld

Mecklenburg
- Mecklenburg-Schwerin
- Mecklenburg-Strelitz

Nassau
- Orange-Nassau

Wettin (Saxony)
- Ernestine line
  - Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach
  - Gotha branch
    - Saxe-Meiningen
    - Hildburghausen, later Saxe-Altenburg
    - Coburg-Saalfeld, later Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
- Albertine line
  - Saxe

I'm impressed by your knowledge. Frequently on Wiki you come across people with a bit of information and one hell of an agenda. But you also come across people who know a hell of a lot, sometimes more than they realise until they start writing articles. Reading contributions from people who clearly know what they are talking about, or are well on the way to getting there, is one of the fun bits of being on Wiki. JTD 00:46 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Like you, I find it most enjoyable here when people cooperate and can actually learn from each other. Edit wars just raise the blood-pressure, not the level of knowledge<G>. -- Someone else 06:36 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC) PS...ah, yes, the agenda can be a real killer on some of these articles. Much better to be obsessed over saying one thing exactly true, than insisting on perpetrating propaganda.

You forgot ~~Poland~~ Sigmaringen. :D

The Frederick 10:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This talk of House and Surname is somewhat crazy in some of these cases. The idea of 'surname' isnt really integral to the concept of 'royalty'. Even when the British royal family decided to change their german "surname" to something suitably english - they had to do considerable guesswork deciding what that surname actually was. The discussions end up being silly - noone is an authority and their isnt some rule that can be applied. Its often a matter of personal taste with these people. tridesch Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

When Queen Victoria was asked what her surname was she replied that she thought it might be Guelph or possible Welf. Which was a view then au courrant, but of little validity<G>. -- Someone else 06:36 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

True, but some people foolishly have been trying to put royals on Wiki through what they think (usually wrongly) is the surname; eg, 'Charles Windsor' for the Prince of Wales, whose actual surname according to Buckingham Palace is Mountbatten-Windsor, not that he ever uses it. The point of this and related pages is to get through to people that you cannot simply add 'makey-uppy' surnames on Wiki, or even worse, demand that royals be referred to only by non-existent surnames. The only workable solution is to rely on their title, as in Charles, Prince of Wales, Anne, Princess Royal etc. with a Royal House reference in the text to clarify which Royal Family they actually belong to. (Though unlike most royals, ironically Anne and Charles do have a surname!) JTD 01:52 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Part of the reason JTD came up with a Royal House page at all is to discourage the use of made-up surnames. And one of the very interesting things that I'm finding out from [1] looking into it and [2] not having many surnames show up here in response to my ignorance of same, is that it's the rare royal or even formerly reigning house that has anything approaching a "normal" or standard surname. So words to that effect will be of benefit in the article. Something along those lines, and pointing out the somewhat ironic point that most the surnames of most commoners are more ancient than those of royals who have recently adopted surnames.<G>. -- Someone else 06:36 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Habsburgs and Romanovs

One of my uncles (who was born in the 1920s) was adopted. With great difficulty he traced his birth parents in the 1960s. It turned out he was a bastard of the Habsburgs and was born with the surname Edler von Kirsch. There was some connection with the Romanov dynasty - way, way back - anyone know the link? David Cleghorn (davidcleghorn32@hotmail.com).

Question over Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

I am afraid that this line is incorrect "imilarly, though the British Royal House name under Queen Victoria and King Edward VII was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, the personal surname of Victoria's descendants was Wettin." I was under the impression that under Victorias reign, it was still the House of Hanover, as decended from George, Elector of Hanover. When Victoria died, Edward VII did take the name of his fathers family, Saxe-Cobug-Gotha. I am going to edit to show this unless someone can prove otherwise?

--Dudeness10 8 July 2005 17:18 (UTC)

Victoria was the last of the House of Hanover to rule over Britain. However, on that surname thing, she took her husband's name, which was found in ancient times to be Wettin, as women take their husband's name upon marriage, as they still do now in Western countries.Emerson 07 (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British royal during the House of Hanover and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha didn't use surnames; the Windsors, the Tudors, the Stuarts did. Queen regnants don't take on their husband's name or royal house; their children do. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why know Grimaldi?(sp?)

The Royal house of Monaco is missing, why?

There is no such thing as Royal house of Monaco. Monaco is ruled by a Prince who belongs to the Princely House of Grimaldi. Surtsicna (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liechtenstein

The royal house of Liechtenstein isn't included... Sotakeit 20:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not a royal house. It's a princely house. Surtsicna (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

For discussion of this proposal, please see Talk:Dynasty#Merge proposal. FactStraight (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israel..

Israel is a modern state which ever since its inception has not had Royalty.

The Davidic line as well as the Hasmonean dynasty did not rule the modern state of Israel and as such they are not extinct houses of the modern state of Israel. --92.40.65.116 (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just link it to Kingdom of Israel, I don't see the problem...--Cameron * 11:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be correct in the case of the Davidic line, but is it wise to turn this article into one about every single ancient historical kingdom in existence?

Most of the countries mentioned would require an article for themselves to deconstruct their previous re-incarnations and legendary as well as historical Royalty. --92.40.35.23 (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I will be shortening the list anyway, shortly. --Cameron * 18:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volgaland

I removed it from the entry on reigning houses. It's not a reigning house by any standards. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei

I'm adding Brunei (House of Bolkiah) top the list of extant sovereign houses. I see no reason it should be omitted.87.139.126.43 (talk)

___ ZULU KINGS Zweletini ----

What about the Zulu royal house of Zweletini??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.58.71.208 (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Headship of Royal Houses

Could anyone please enlighten me as to what are the rules of succession on headship to royal houses? Currently, I believe that it passes through agnatic primogeniture. The prominence of status of a woman does not elevate her to the headship of the house - i.e. Queen Elizabeth II or Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester as Head of the House of Windsor (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha branch) - or does it? Emerson 07 (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that is different for each house, and it can be changed to fit circumstances. For example, see Salic_law#Application_in_France, where the old Salic law was resurrected and strengthened to forbid the inheritance of kingship via female lines. All in order to refute the claim of a certain royal house. The article lists more examples for Spain, Britain, one German state, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Normandy, where the law had to be changed to forbid (or to allow) inheritance by females. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The headship of houses and the claims to thrones are independent of each other. In Denmark, the throne was inherited in 1863 by a junior member of a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg, mostly because his wife was a close relative of the childless, last Oldenburg king. The Danish monarchs have never claimed to be heads of their house (House of Glücksburg or House of Oldenburg), instead, the descendants of the elder brother of Christian IX of Denmark are the heads of the house. Garn Svend (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest moving the page

The term house, referring to family, is actually not only used for royal houses, but also frequently for (other) noble houses, both souvereign and non-souvereign. A better title would be house (family). Garn Svend (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This article is about sovereign houses (royalty), and this is defined as "in common parlance members of any family which reigns by hereditary right are often referred to as royalty or "royals". It is also customary in some circles to refer to the extended relations of a deposed monarch and his or her descendants as a royal family." If this list will be about all noble houses, this will be extremely long, as every peerage or noble family is "noble house".--Yopie (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Yopie. If this article is to be re-named it should be to "Sovereign Houses". If it is to be merged with another article it should be Dynasty. FactStraight (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support12.28.236.6 (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support184.98.204.157 (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closing admin Both IP´s above are sockppupets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/12.28.236.6. --Yopie (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support208.248.82.6 (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support71.35.17.152 (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closing admin 208 IP blocked for sock puppetry. 71 IP geolocates to Phoenix Arizona like other blocked IPs. DeCausa (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 71.35 has just been blocked as yet another sock. Favonian (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of royal houses

I was going to split this article per a long standing split tag, however I found that article already exists and at cursory inspection duplicates the information in the list in this article. Would there be any objection to me moving any information in the list in this article that is not in the List of royal houses articles and removing the list in this article? Op47 (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]