Template talk:Royal houses of Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Highly incomplete![edit]

This template is Highly incomplete! I shall try to expand some. The Ogre (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I know! I just started it in the hope that someone else would finish it. Thanks a lot. Mark J (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Purpose?[edit]

Is this template a listing or origins or places ruled? If one is going to list "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" under Germany, which they never ruled, and not list Wettin, where are the hundreds of other royal and nobles houses? Charles 18:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Spain[edit]

And Spain (and predecessors) is . . ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.210.163 (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Same for Sweden. The template uses the general tabulating Template:navbox which serves up to 20 entries. The royal houses of Spain and Sweden are entered into the "Royal houses of Europe" template, but the Navbox template doesn't serve them. Since Navbox is locked, I consider cloning it. Said: Rursus 07:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Tombstone fixed it so that it works now! Said: Rursus 08:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Lancaster?[edit]

As this is related to the disputed French reign of Henry VI of England, it should IMHO be removed from the 'France' section. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Irish royal houses[edit]

I realize that some may be viewing the list of Irish royal houses with concern, but the vast corpus of annals and genealogical and legendary material allow us to go back quite far into Ireland's 'Golden Age' (400-950) and even before.

Another concern might be the divisions I have introduced between the Goidel, Briton, and Foreigners. This is however an accurate simplification of the divisions expressed in the corpus. DinDraithou (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, just out of interest, what is the reasoning behind Irish royal houses being listed under the 'United Kingdom,' seeing as (most of) the island isn't part of the U.K.? Gerrynobody (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Romanian houses?[edit]

Shouldn't the House of Basarab, House of Drăculeşti and the House of Bogdan-Muşat be included? Semi-Lobster (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Spelling[edit]

Why is "Stuart" spelled differently for Scotland than elsewhere? -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Windsor and the future.[edit]

What will the house of Windsow become known as when Charles ascends to the throne. (I'm thinking of Edward VII's dynastic name here)1812ahill (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

St Olaf / Gorm[edit]

Hi. The template was edited to add the houses / dynasties of Gorm and St Olaf but both were redlinks. I have fixed both links so they point to their respective houses in their respective monarchy lists but have kept the old links within hidden tags ( <!-- ) so that they can be brought back if the aim was to create new pages for these houses. Apologies if I've created problems or anyone. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC).

RfC notification[edit]

A request for comments which may impact this template has been started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC on style in royal family templates. You are welcome to comment there. Fram (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal query[edit]

This removal by Jaqeli was on the basis that the list for Georgia also included "princely houses". Last time I checked, princes were also royalty and the template includes both ruling families and "princely houses" - those who ruled but not necessarily as "king". Unless there is a particularly good reason why Georgia should be treated differently, that should probably be reverted. Stalwart111 13:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This template is called "Royal houses of Europe" thus only royal families should be included. I've left only those Georgian royal families who only were royal and ruled the kingdoms. Jaqeli (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not "ruling houses", it's "royal houses". How are princely houses not royal houses? Stalwart111 13:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
This template is about "royal houses" and those that I've removed were not "royal" houses but "princely" houses. Now if you don't understand the difference between these two I can do nothing. Jaqeli (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, you've not explained how princely houses aren't royal houses, especially since those are included for other countries on the same basis. There's no consensus for the removal of such links on the basis you've put forward. Any reason the removal shouldn't be reverted? Stalwart111 14:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you understand English language? Those families I've removed were not royal. You have to have any knowledge in the Georgian feudal system to understand. Those are princely families and this does not mean "royal princely" but just princely. They are lower in rank and thus are not royal. Jaqeli (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Have you looked at the rest of the template to familiarise yourself with the context? You don't seem to understand what you're arguing. Your contributions, talk page and willingness to quickly resort to personal attacks demonstrate an obvious axe to grind. I don't know what POV you're trying to push but I don't care enough about Georgian politics to get involved. Someone else can deal with your nonsense. Stalwart111 15:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I think Jaqeli's rationale rests on the standard definition of a royal house as a dynasty whose members enjoy the title of king, queen, or their equivalents in non-Western European countries. I would concur with him that the families he had removed from the template did not fit this definition.--KoberTalk 09:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I was pleased someone had happened to randomly stumble upon this discussion, then I had a quick look at Jaqeli's contributions. Ha ha. If you actually looked at the template a bit (and as I suggested in my very first post in this thread) you'd realise that's not the definition that has been used. It might be the wrong definition and that's fine. And if a handful of Georgian editors want to treat Georgia differently, that's fine too. But please don't suggest it was done on the basis of a consensus "standard definition" that clearly doesn't exist. Stalwart111 10:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps a little late to the discussion, but I tend to agree with user:stalwart111 regarding the inclusion of 'princely families'. Several of the houses mentioned on the template are not strictly 'royal families' in the sense of this being the family of a king or queen regnant (Monaco's house of Grimaldi and Liechtenstein's houses both being headed by Princes; the Habsburgs, Romanovs, Hohenzollern being 'Imperial families', headed by Emperors; houses such as the Orsini holding a number of titles, but never reaching that of king etc). However, in common parlance it is standard to refer to all ruling families as 'royal families' - see [[1]] and [[2]] for examples.
Georgia literally had tones of princely families and this template cannot accommodate that volume of families thus only royal families are included. Jaqeli (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Surely the number of such families is unimportant? If they ruled at any point, they should be included - considering this is a template listing royal houses of Europe. For example the House of Chikovani, which you removed, seems to have ruled over the Principality of Mingrelia as an 'independent' state until being annexed by Russia. Or at least that's what the article says? Sotakeit (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
They were very important. For example my dynastic family which is House of Jaqeli ruled a principality which was twice bigger than the most of other Georgian kingdoms. But it was not royal. This template is about the royal houses thus removed the princely houses and left only the royal dynasties. Georgian feudal system is very complex. Word "Prince" may not mean the same as it means in Europe because the Georgian princely system was very different from it. Jaqeli (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
You've hit upon the crux of the issue. This template has not used the technical definition of 'Royal House' as a family headed by a king or queen regnant. This template has used the common definition that includes the family of any ruler. The Collins Dictionary defines it as such, http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/royal-family: a king, queen, or other monarch, and all the members of their family. This usage is essentially the norm. A quick Google search will reveal a trove of references to Grand Ducal, Princely and Imperial families referred to as 'Royal': [[3]]; [[4]]; [[5]]. If these Georgian princes, at any point, ruled as independent or mediatized monarchs of their territories then they should be included. I've left a message on some related projects and portals to see if we can reach some consensus. Sotakeit (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think if we're to add those in we have to move the name of this template first. Jaqeli (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. What would your suggestion be? Sotakeit (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I suggest "Dynasties of Europe" or "Dynastic houses of Europe", divided between currently and formerly reigning. Without acknowledgement, this discussion takes place in the extremely contentious context of how English Wikipedia is to include the counter-claimants of two feuding factions, related by marriage: the Russian throne, disputed between Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia vs Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia (a key issue is the "royal" status of the latter's Mukhraneli mother) and the Georgian throne, disputed between Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky vs David Bagration of Mukhrani (a key issue is the "princely" vs "royal" status attributed to the House of Mukhrani, turning on whether it is possible to simultaneously be both a "noble" and a "royal" prince, despite the Princes di Carignano and the Princes de Conti, famous examples of men who were both). Arguments over "royal" vs "princely" hearken directly to those two rivalries and continue to be fought over in various articles: those who maintain that because different monarchists support different claims Wikipedia must be neutral between pretenders vs. those who maintain that the Georgian Bagrations' dynastic conflict has long ago been decided in favor of one claimant's branch, so Wikipedia distorts reality by failing to reflect that historical consensus. If you're going to weigh the pros & cons, knowing what's also considered at stake by involved editors is relevant. FactStraight (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Vojislavljević dynasty[edit]

Vojislavljević dynasty ruled an undisputed historical Serbian state, and had the regnal titles of "Prince of the Serbs", "of Serbia" etc. (and also "King of Slavs"). I have reverted Sideshow Bob (talk · contribs) dubious edit, which he commented on with: "Vojislavljević dynasty ruled Duklja, not Serbia/Raška, and one alleged title does not make them into Serbian dynasty. Mihailo was titled king of Slavs, so you don't see Poles or Czechs trying to make him their own, nor do Greeks claim that Nemanjićs are Greek because Dušan claimed himself to be Emperor of Serbs and Greeks. Duklja is a predecessor state of Montenegro, hence Vojislavljević dynasty is Montenegrin dynasty, regardless of titular semantics. They never rules Serbian medieval country, the end of story." Stefan Vojislav, the founder of the dynasty, was titled "Prince of the Serbs" and ruled a territory which included (but was not limited to) what is known as "Duklja", situated in southeastern Montenegro. His grandson Constantine Bodin had the title of "protosebastos and executor of Dioklea and Serbia" according to his personal seal. Both Vojislav and Bodin held territories in parts of what is today Montenegro, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia. The user is obviously denying any connection of Serbs/Serbia and the history of Montenegro, as part of basic pseudo-history. He makes no mention of the fact that "Montenegro" was first mentioned in the 15th century (as Crna Gora, "Black Mountain"→Montenegro) denoting a geographical region of Upper Zeta.--Zoupan 13:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


Just a few quick notes about your pseudo-historical falacies: 1) "protosebastos and executor of Duklja AND Serbia" implies difference between the two. 2) Serb(ian) in its current meaning has absolutely nothing to do with a South Slav, Catholic dynasty of Vojislavljević 3) Since there is a historically undisputed continuity between terms Dioklian-Zetan-Montenegrin, denoting the same distinct ethnic group of mixed Slavic and Illyrian heritage, not a part Turkish-Slavic ethnic mix which is modern Serb ethnos.

I understand your inferiority complex and desire to incorporate Montenegrin history into yours, but NPOV is required here, not your wishful thinking. Get a life. Sideshow Bob 09:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Royal houses only or not?[edit]

There are some families that shouldn't be listed if this template is only for Royal houses.--MarcusVetus 13:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusVetus (talkcontribs)

Order[edit]

Alphabetic or chronological order?[edit]

Should the houses be added in alphabetic or in chronological order? Demophon (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

For the Houses within each section, definitely chronological! It's much more educative this way and there is no need to refer to specific articles to see the historical successions of houses (in reply to 2008 comment). AugustinMa (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Germany[edit]

Can someone explain to me which system was applied to order the entries of this template? It does not seem plausible to me e. g. regarding Germany. Thanks in advance--Hubon (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Main sections[edit]

Another problem with the order, is the main European section. There does not appear to be any logic. The current order is: 1) Nordic countries 2) Britain and Ireland 3) Eastern Europe 4) Western Europe 5) Central Europe. Why is Britain and Ireland listed separately from Western Europe? It is neither in alphabetical order, nor in geographical order. If it were the latter, we'd expect to have something from West to East (or the other way): 1) Western Europe 2) Central 3) Europe Eastern Europe, with Britain and Ireland listed either within Western Europe, or as a subsection thereof, or before it. What order would you suggest? AugustinMa (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)