User talk:Surtsicna/Archive1

Philip I

Hello and welcome. In this edit, you note that Philip the Fair traveled to Spain in 1502 as jure uxoris rex and not as King consort. Are you sure of that? It is my understanding that this was not conferred until the death of Isabella in 1504; in 1502, however, he would still have been the presumed consort. I would be very interested in your source for this correction if indeed true so it can be added to the article. Thanks! Eusebeus (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have replied/moved the discussion to my talk page. Please reply there. Thanks. Eusebeus (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Russian emperors

The chief reason for me undoing your moves is that they were copy/paste moves, meaning you copied the text from one page and pasted it to the other. Doing so is not allowed on Wikipedia as it disrupts the page history and makes things very confusing for other editors. There is a proper procedure for initiating moves which can be seen if you visit this like: WP:RM. Most moves are best discussed beforehand anyway. Another reason for WP:RM is that administrators perform the moves which means that they are not stopped by the target name being used as a redirect. As for the use of ordinals for monarchs who were or are the only ones to reign under a certain name, it just really depends on what was used and it is not always consistent at that. After all, we have Juan Carlos I of Spain without there being a Juan Carlos II. If you do follow the process at WP:RM there is a chance that the community will endorse a move. Charles 18:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And please use the {{move}} and {{RMlink}} tags, as instructed, to set up a Requested move according to our format. It's an imposition to leave it to somebody else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Queen Zein

Hi, thanks for your message. The reason i changed it is because the jordan royal family compared to other royal families are different the titles stay with them for life even in death unless they have divorced. Queen Zein was only known by the name Zein al-Sharaf Talal till 1951 when she was made Queen that stayed her title even though she has passed away and there have been other Queens. Even to this day in any articles she is always mentioned as Queen Zein and if someone was searching here for her that is what would be used she isn't refered to as Zein al-Sharaf Talal and not many people know of her surname al sharaf talal, thats the reason i changed it. I'm fairly new to wikipedia so if i broke any rules by doing that please let me know. Thanks AliaBuhler (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I really do see your point aswell but the link you gave was how to change European royal consorts names, maybe i'll change her name to Queen Zein al Sharaf Talal that way as you mentioned if there was ever another Queen Zein you would be able to tell them apart AliaBuhler (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jordan Template

the template doesnt go by any order, if it went through order of precedence, then for instants haya wouldnt be above ali, rashid and nayef wouldnt below there sisters same with other members of the familym as males are first precedence when going by that. The template goes by family sections and oldest to youngest whether male or female, thats why abdullah and rania's family are put together, then his brother and his family together etc, noor is placed before her part of the family then followed by her children youngest to oldest. By putting noor under abdullah and rania there children can no longer be the way they are as they follow on like the children the princes etc have had. And also if going by some precedence muna and dina couldnt be included neither can abir as even thought they are part of the royal family they dont have any official place or precedence in the family AliaBuhler (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• hi, yes i like the way you have rearanged it. I'm going to add princess haya in as she has been left out, even though she is apart of the dubai royal house now she is still apart of the jordan royal family. I do think Taghrid Majali should be included as you said she is married to a prince and all the others have been included, and to continue with the theme of the template i will add his two children in as they are his sons that way everyone is the same. AliaBuhler (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth of Russia

Not sure why you keep removing the titular elements of the info box as this information is standard in articles concerning former monarchs (See Feodor II of Russia and Alexander I of Russia as examples). Please note that it is customary for editors to use edit summaries particularly for contentious edits. Rather than continuing to make the edits, however, it's far more wise to discuss on the article talk page rather than engage in edit warring. --Ave Caesar (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, it seems that the standard to retain the title beside the name exists among the Russian monarchs on Wiki, but not for their British counterparts. I would assume there is a reason, but I'm not entirely sure. I'll try to look into it. --Ave Caesar (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. I'm still trying to figure out why it's different for the Russian monarch articles, but don't have too much time to mind the issue at the moment. --Ave Caesar (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother

I certainly won't revert your edit to English and British Queen mothers‎, but in fact the Queen Mother was referred to, for example in the official prayer for the Royal Family (which is approved by Parliament), as Queen Elizabeth and Elizabeth the Queen Mother. [1] Cheers!--Poetlister (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeanne III of Navarre

I noticed that you incorrectly changed the name of this French person to the Anglicised form of Joan, a name which is never assigned to her in history books or encyclopedias. She is invariably called Jeanne III of Navarre or, more commonly, Jeanne d'Albret. Thank you for your cooperation.jeanne (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You've got a good point. I hadn't considered that. Ok. we can say she is also known as Joan III.jeanne (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox British Royalty

The {{Infobox British Royalty}} template was created for "British royalty", which means the articles covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty, i.e. from 1714 onwards. It really isn't very appropriate for earlier subjects who were not "British". Also "Majesty" isn't right for rulers before the C16th and C17th, when "Grace" or the like were used. James I of Scotland wasn't "The King's Majesty", nor even was James VI as you can see at James I of England, Majesty referring to his English title, Grace to his Scots one. Hope this helps, Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, but the solution is not to add the box to Scottish, Irish, Welsh monarchs, it is to remove it from English ones. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Queen

I think that "The Queen" is a style reserved for the exclusive use of the Queen Regnant or the Queen Consort. During Edward's reign Mary was neither of these. DrKiernan (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You might be re-assured by this external site, which gives Mary as "Mary, the Queen Mother" in the official prayers during Edward's reign. DrKiernan (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Jordan template

thanks for that idea thats a better idea then before, however i moved the hidden bit to the end of the main family which was shown before then the hidden bit will include the actual extended family. AliaBuhler (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

the reason i moved it is all templates include the brothers/sisters of the king/queen, i know there is loads in this family but i think at the moment the template is ok, as long as the extended family is kept hidden then i think it will all be ok AliaBuhler (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert question: Template:Infobox British Royalty

I noticed you reverted my change to the template diff Was this done out of hand as a suspected IPvandal or is there some objection (technical or otherwise) to the change? I was attempting to add some indentation and visually group the information. 75.132.192.205 (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Queens/Consorts

Hi-

No, I won't be commenting. I learned a while ago that getting involved in those discussions on that page are merely an excuse for other editors, who shall remain nameless, to be bullies and heap scorn. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 12:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

HIM Empress Farah Pahlavi

This article needs and administrator to move it back, so I listed it on Requested Moves. The problem is that I'm not certain that the previous title was any better the best title -- in general, we don't begin articles with titles, even for royalty. So, I propose it for discussion. Also, HIM King Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Fair point. I'm not sure that I agree with this treatment of consorts as an inflexible rule. It may, however, be the best option in this case. The Shah was, of course, a regnant monarch, although I am not sure what is the best solution there either, so long as it is not the current one. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Portrait of the two women

Thank you for your message, it was great to receive praise from someone whose hard work has improved many of the articles I'm interested in. I'm afraid portraits aren't my strong point, although I have seen the portrait before, but read nothing conclusive about the girls' identities and cannot find it in the books I own. I find identifying them in portraits so difficult - for instance, Anne Boleyn was drawn with pale skin and auburn hair, defying contemporary descriptions of her but fitting in with contemporary ideas of beauty. The way they are sat in this particular portrait, covering their faces, is very different to the usual court portraits. I'm afraid on this occasion I'm of little help, but I'm interested in your project and please contact me again if you think I can be of use. Thanks,Boleyn (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia

There is no consensus to move this page to Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsesarevich of Russia. The more common title in English is Tsarevich, which is what is used on the English Wikipedia site. Do not attempt to move the page again without discussing it on the talk page. I have reverted your move. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It was originally Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich of Russia before someone changed it. That would be the preferable title. But I don't agree to Tsesarevich because it is unfamiliar to English speakers. The title of the page in English needs to be Tsarevich or, perhaps, Czarevich. If you want to add a line to the body of the article about the distinction between Tsarevich and Tsesarevich, that's appropriate. The title itself needs to be the one that is most familiar in English. Moving the page without discussion isn't really appropriate, particularly when the issue has been debated in the past and no consensus was reached. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Grand Duke Alexei Nikolaevich of Russia is inappropriate, both because it's not familiar in English and because he was Heir to the throne. In English, the title is Tsarevich Alexei. That's the only title that is appropriate in English. Tsesarevich isn't appropriate. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

An administrator would have to move it because it's been moved to that title and back more than once. In any event, the current title is more appropriate than either Grand Duke Alexei or Tsesarevich Alexei, given that Tsarevich is the familiar title in English. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I will not agree to Tsesarevich. He is called Tsarevich or Czarevich in English language references. That is the only appropriate title for the article. If you want to take steps to ask an administrator to move the page back to Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich of Russia, I don't object. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

info boxes

Please go go around undoing all my changes as i;ve already made changes to all the pages because you have enter the image section wrong on your templates, this is how image pictures are enter on here it is how people have learnt to do them, not the way you have done them. I will be very disappointed in you if you going reverting all my changes when i have made the correct changes on the template and on the pages that have needed it. AliaBuhler (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• that has been one box that has been like done like that and you take it for that is how it is done all the other boxes on wiki are not done like it. Wiki uses html adding images the way i have is how it is done, that image thing you include isn't even included automatic in the boxes so someone new adding a picture will not know how to do it. The image size you are using is way to big for nearly all pictures on wiki and it makes the pages more tight because of a huge picture. I have been going around correcting the images sizes on the pages affected so you havent need to do anything but revert my changes because you want the boxes to be how you want them not how there suppose to be and how everyone adds images on here. Why have these boxes got to be any different.AliaBuhler (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• seeing as your still changing it you can go around changing all the boes back because i will not do it. 262px for an image is way too big for an infobox picture, and that other code is not automatic in the boxes so someone will not know how to change it. if you cannot accept people making some changings to the boxes you have put together then dont make the boxesAliaBuhler (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

you are going by what ONE infobox has done, not what all infoboxes do, Why is the british infobox use as the so called correct one, its the only one that does it to all the other infoboxs to me that box should be change to how all infoboxes are done. but fine leave the british one like that but change all the others to how they have always been. when you use html to add a picture it has always been [[Image:1234.jpg|then image size suitable to the current image]] it has never been any different AliaBuhler (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• no images have been wider then what you have put all images have been made smaller because the image size your using is way to big for an infobox picture. As i've said before i've already made the changes needed to alot of the pages to correct the picture till you started reverting but i will not go back changing them to the way you want it based on how one infobox does it when no other box doesAliaBuhler (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

i did read and dont need to read again, british royalty boxes dont out do all the other boxes, since when what british royalty boxes done been what all the boxes should do. you want that style of image then you can go around changing it all back and making the appropriate changes to the image size so they aren't so big because it makes the page look horrible when there is a huge image. I will not go back to all the pages i changed making the picture smaller and look better for the page. You want it change you do it. AliaBuhler (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes. Pain in the neck at the best of times, but when you use the wrong one, like here (and the rest), they are worse still. What does Style of the British sovereign#List of changes to the royal style have to do with Alexander I of Scotland? Nothing, although there is a Style of the monarchs of Scotland article that one might link to. Was David I of Scotland British royalty? No. Please use the right infobox: boring old {{Infobox Monarch}} in this case. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The British infobox is supposed to be for post-1707 (or -1803) monarchs, for when all of the info can be filled in all of the time, see Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty. The ordinary monarch box contains too many fields as is, tempting people to add all sorts of silliness. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Tomislav II of Croatia

Is this just your gutt feeling that undisputed is the way to go or you have some WP to reference that feeling. It is common policy on Wikipedia that in the case of nobility - the highest obtained rank is the title on this Wikipedia. -- Imbris (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that the British monarch is known as King or Queen of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and even Fiji, Jamajca, Lord of Man, etc. So please do not use that excuse for a source.

Aimone is best known in history (general) as the King of Croatia, books have been written on that topic and not on the Duke of Spoleto and Aosta.

Imbris (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Dubai

Why did you remove HH from the Sheik's and Sheikha's name? Are they not styled His/Her Highness? Are you telling me that they don't bear any style at all, while their children do? (Curiously enough, according to you the Crown Prince bears no style either, while his lower ranking siblings do) that would be a mistake then is that allowed

Sheik Muhammed is either The Sheik or The Emir of Dubai, so don't remove the. The in front of the title shows that he is head of the family and Sheikha Hindu should also be The Sheikha He is Emir Sheikh Mohammed that is his title there has never been a The Emir Sheikh which doesnt make sense, unlike The King and The Queen the styles are different, The has too be used which your trying to make out it has to be then if anything his should be The Emir Sheikh Mohammed. Sheikha hind is also not The Sheikha as there is no such thing in dubai as the ruler has several wives and you cannot style them all The Sheikha, so they are style Sheikha as it is required that they all be styled the same. You are trying to compare them to western and many middle eastern families, The dubai family has always style themselves differently it doesnt mean it is wrong it is how they do it.

The Sheik's name should be bold because names of heads of reigning families are bold. See every other template concerning royal families then that would be a tiny mistake too as i had to change so much when you un-neededly changed things it was easier and less confusing to just revert and start again

Please stop trying to find faults with my edits like you have been. AliaBuhler (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging my comments. The promotes the holder of the title to a higher level, while name downgrades the holder. That's why I removed Muhammed from HH the Sheikh Emir. I really don't have a grudge againts you, I just want to improve articles and templates - just like you. Our ways may not always be the same, but lets try to gain consensus before we start flaming. Okay? at times it does come off that you do hold some kind of grudge, but thats the internet you dont really know how someone is meaning something. I think we're just going to have too agree to disagree on some things Then again we might be a bit nervous and cranky because of sawm. I know that fasting whole day makes me nervous :), I've left you a note here i dont celebrate sawm but i hope your coping with it. In regards to the other note, i think it must be to do with you as when you add the table for me on this computer and others it just puts the template underneath the info box and you dont lose none of the infoboxAliaBuhler (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

remove some jordan family from template

i thinking about removing some of the very minor members of the jordan family from the template and wondered if you agree with the removal off HRH Prince Hussein HRH Prince Muhammad HRH Princess Rajaa the children of prince talal, HRH Princess Tasneem HRH Prince Abdullah HRH Princess Jennah children of prince ghazi and also HRH Princess Yasmine HRH Princess Sarah HRH Princess Salha HRH Princess Nejla HRH Prince Nayef children of prince asem and also his wife HRH Princess Sana, reason being these articles have very little info in them and they aren't much use, i know i created the articles to start with but i think now they are not needed and i'm not sure why prince asem's wife has a page when no other wife has a page, would you agree with there removal AliaBuhler (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Royal Family of Iran

Even though like greece they no longer rule a country would you think it right to have a template for the members of the iran family. AliaBuhler (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Royal Family of Hawaii

Hey Surtsicna! I have noticed you have been creating most of Infobox royalty templates and I wonder how do you change the color on it. I been started the Template:Infobox Hawaiian Royalty and yeah it isn't looking so good. I can seem to make the Kuhina nui thing pop up. And the color is exactly like the British one and I have no clue how to change it. KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Thanks. You know in Richard I of England there is a section for his regents because on Template:Infobox British Royalty there is a regent section. Well I change it on Hawaiian Royalty from regent to Kuhina Nui. I have edit it on Kamehameha II but it doesnot show up. Know why? KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Colors

Can you make it red maybe dark red like the ones on Hawaiian feather cloaks? because red is the color of the Big Island of Hawaii which later conquered the rest of the archipelago.

| majesty = FFFFFF | monarch = FFFFFF | prince = FFFFFF | princess = FFFFFF

Could this be also split into section with different colors:

| Hawaii = Red | Oahu = Yellow | Kauai = Purple | Niihau = White | Molokai = Green | Maui = Pink | Lanai = Orange | Kahoolawe = Grey

Märtha Louise of Norway

Thank you for you small corrections in the article. I wish you a nice evening and a good night. --AndreaMimi (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Queen Sonja of Norway

I'm very sorry, thats my mistake. I havn't seen the boxes, you made. I only look at "my" tables, that I built yesterday. --AndreaMimi (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Catherine of Aragon article

Erm yes im not stupid i know England isnt a kingdom anymore seen as i live in the uk, but its still a counrty...its jus a country thats part o a kingdom wles and calais were owned by england but you wouldnt say that wales was in england or anything, and also wales used to be a kingdom Chloe2kaii7 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloe2kaii7 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

it was important as she was the ruler of them!!!!!!! yes wales was a kingdom actually it had rulers etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloe2kaii7 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC) actually for a ime she was queen regnant, it wasnt for long but she still was i kknow the diffrence between consort and regnant, stop trying to ac like i know nothing and you know everything your just being pompous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloe2kaii7 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

ooh im shaking in my boots Chloe2kaii7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC).

---

Hello hello. I don't really like weighing into disputes with which I previously had no connection, but if you're referring to the lengthy recitation of titles in the introduction I would suggest that you could justifiably remove most of them as unreferenced. Can any evidence be produced to show she was ever called "Queen Regent" in 1513/1514? Can it be demonstrated (from a marriage contract or something) that she actually used the title "Infanta of Barcelona" (etc)? If not, then to attribute these titles to her based on later interpretations of title usage is anachronistic and has no place on wikipedia.

Calais was never part of England: possession of this town was represented by the title "King of France". Ireland is also missed out, come to that. Opera hat (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like User:PatGallacher is on the case. Opera hat (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures and things

I'm afraid I know absolutely nothing about the rules on images so I'm no use at all! Sorry.

By the way, I've gone back on my statement above about not getting involved and written a massive screed at Talk:Catherine of Aragon#Titles in full. If the reverts are even still happening then that should sort them out; if it doesn't then you can start raising it as a vandalism issue. Opera hat (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

'Suis désolé; I don't really "know" anyone on wikipedia at all, let alone experts on fair use. Maybe post the question at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, if you haven't already? Opera hat (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Queen of France/Dss of Suffolk

The present article on Mary Tudor cites Antonia Fraser as saying that even after her marriage to Suffolk Mary was known as "the French Queen". And I think I remember reading somewhere that Catherine Parr was still known as "the Queen" even after her marriage to Lord Seymour in 1547. So moving the page as you suggest would not reflect contemporary practice. Opera hat (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

DRF Infobox

Those cookies look delicious...anyway...just noticed...how come you changed the colours in the template? I thought red and white were nice, since they are the colours of the Danish flag...Morhange (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Swedish Royal Infobox

Hello Surtsicna, thank you for your comment on my talk page. The Swedish royal family has an official website here. Obviously they do not consider "King Carl XVI Gustaf" to mean an ex-king or they would not use it on their own website. Either "King Carl XVI Gustaf" or "The King" is correct. Princess Birgitta of Hohenzollern (not Hohenzollern-Sigmarigen) is the way they call her (look here. As for duke titles, "Prince Carl Philip" is used in Sweden much more than "The Duke of Värmland." Yes they are both official titles, but if using "The Duke of Värmland" then "Prince Carl Philip" should also be used because it is used even more than "Duke" in Sweden. Also, Princess Madeleine is Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland together, officially it is never "Duchess of Hälsingland and Duchess of Gästrikland".

All this is on the official website by the Royal Court. Maybe they make mistakes, but as it is the Royal Family's own website you must have good reason not to call them what they call themselves. I hope that explains. Ellanor2 (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Input

There is a post on WP:AN that you may or may not wish to comment on. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 07:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it's your choice. Cheers. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 18:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies

Surtsicna, thank you for all of your edits removing my careless mistakes in the House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies articles. --Caponer (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Princesses of the Two Sicilies

Surtsicna, I had created the Category:Princesses of the Two Sicilies but erroneously named it "Princesses of the Two Sicilies" and not "Princesses of Bourbon-Two Sicilies" which would be more accurate since the princes' category is Category:Princes of Bourbon-Two Sicilies. The same nomenclature is used for the Princes and Princesses of Bourbon-Parma, too. I've moved articles to new titles, but have never moved categories to new titles. Does this require admin assistance or is this something I can do myself? Thanks! --Caponer (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your assistance, Surtsicna! I've completed the transfer of princesses to the newly minted category. Now what becomes of the old one? Thanks again! --Caponer (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Prince Afonso of Brazil

I would like to ask you to stop putting Afonso of Braganza as a portuguese prince. Neither he and his father were portuguese princes.

Dom Pedro II of Brazil did not become king of Portugal (despite being a male) in place of his elder sister because he was born at the end of 1825, when Portugal had already recognized Brazi´s independence. For all the effects he was a foreigner to Portugal and also his children.--Lecen (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Pedro I was born in Portugal and was the eldest son (still alive) of João VI, king of Portugal. Although he started the war of the brazilian independence in 1822, he was not excluded from the succession. The peace treaty recognized him as the heir to João VI. But, the treaty was signed before the birth of Pedro II and he was born when Brazil was an independent country, which made him a foreigner. This is why his sister, Maria II became queen: she was born in Rio de Janeiro in 1819, just like Pedro II, but when Brazil was considered a portuguese soil. And another thing: I am brazilian and Pedro II was never recognized as a portuguese prince and had he, he would have been the King of Portugal and not his sister.--Lecen (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Theresa Christina of Bourbon-Two Sicilies

The page was moved to Theresa Christina of the Two Sicilies because she was born before 1861. The form "Bourbon-Two Sicilies" was only used for princesses born after the kingdom ceased to exist in 1861. Would you kindly move it back, please? It was moved by an administrator because it was requested and backed up with this information. Thank you. Charles 14:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello to you too. I am sorry for being ignorant enough to revert the move. It was kindly moved back. Thank you for informing me. The page was moved back by another user. Surtsicna (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Gyanendra of Nepal

Not sure I agree with you about the "former" part. Queen Victoria might not be the best example, since "former" is pretty well implicit in "dead". Living ex-monarchs are somewhat unusual, so the term "former" might be helpful. See the talk page and please chime in. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U

There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment.

I forgot to give you this message when I notified everyone else. Participation is entirely optional. [ roux ] [x] 18:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Which two people? [ roux ] [x] 21:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Prince Max of Bavaria

Prince Max is not THE Duke in Bavaria, but rather a Duke in Bavaria (although he is the only person who bears this title). The title is not substantive, i.e. is not a title held by one person; instead it is a title held by all members of the family. When Prince Max sends out an invitation it doesn't read (in translation) "HRH The Duke in Bavaria invites you ...", but rather "HRH Max Duke in Bavaria invites you ...". Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)