Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
 

House of[edit]

For the precious discussion see Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 29#House of

There is a conversation going on over several pages, so it is probably better if it is centralised here.

Ping those involved so far

--PBS (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Adding user:Spiderjerky so that they are aware that their recent edits cut across an on-going discussion that has not yet established a consensus. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Conversations today about "House of" on difference pages

From Talk:House of Percy#Potential move

Potential move

I think that if there is to be a move of this page to Percy family then WP:RM#CM ought to be used (see this discussion). -- PBS (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: Err... where exactly did that discussion take place? Wouldn't it have been here? — fortunavelut luna 13:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The link I give above is where I discussed it with Domdeparis however thre was a much more detailed discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 29#House of which is related to a set of unilateral moves that Domdeparis made. -- PBS (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

A split conversation between two pages user talk:Gryffindor user talk:PBS

User talk:Gryffindor Talk:PBS
Do not move articles that start "House of" without using an WP:RM as such move are often controversial see a previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 29#House of -- PBS (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Also do not edit the resultant redirect, like for some of the recent moves that you made because to do so stops an editor easily reverting you moves and so such edits are disruptive. -- PBS (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
the term "House of" in English as a general rule only applies to ruling and sovereign dynasties, not some noble family. Otherwise any family could call themselves "House of" and where would we end with that? Thank you for your understanding. Gryffindor (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Whether or not "House of" is correct or incorrect is not something to be decided by a rule. It is something to be decided by consensus on the talk page, and if a move is to be made then use WP:RM. It is much more complicated for continental European families as everyone and his dog held sovereign rights over their territory at one time or another before the founding of the modern national states. -- PBS (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree, see WP:BOLD. Within the Holy Roman Empire by law no one was sovereign except the emperor himself. The same applies to Kings of England, France, etc. and their dynasties. Therefore we have House of Windsor, or do you want to propose we rename Category:Wellesley family to "House of Wellesley"? Giving everyone (including their dog as you said) a "House of" format is out of bounds and needs to be corrected. Gryffindor (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not proposing anything. I am not claiming right of wrong. I am suggesting that instead of moving hundreds of articles because you "know" that that are incorrectly named that you get consensus for the moves. How do yo know that the rule you are enforcing is correct in all cases? -- PBS (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Lets look at an example. Here is a link a source of one of the pages you moved House of Arenberg. Why did you move it? -- PBS (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
He ors she, claims that he wants to change everything like the English model of nobility, in my vieuw, not correct.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolus (talkcontribs) 14:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Can we please keep the conversation on your talk page, Gryffindor? thank you--Carolus (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, if these are families that were not ruling, hereditary dynasties of a sovereign and independent country, they are not a "House of", as opposed to the Windsors, Romanovs, Medici, Bourbons, etc. I already gave the example with the Wellesley family. On what basis are you arguing in favour of using it? Gryffindor (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Saw your first comment so there was no need to reiterate with "Again, if these are families that were not ruling...", what is the source that you draw this conclusion and let's look at the practical example I have given with House of Arenberg and the use of the term by the Arenberg Foundation. What is you source that says this usage is incorrect? -- PBS (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I do understand what that argument has to do with the Belgian nobility?--Carolus (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I would agree with Gryffindor on this point. In the discussion about moving the pages this Library of Congress heading manual tends to back up his point of view. [1]. Common name may be important but so is consistency. There are enough sources to point towards the fact that House of is a usage reserved for royal families and not for any noble family. In French Maison de is only used for ruling dynasties [2]. Domdeparis (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

From user talk:Domdeparis

Hi Domdeparis,

I see you have a similar concern with this "House of" naming format for non-royal or non-sovereign houses. It really is out of control, I agree with you. If you need any help, please let me know in fixing this issue. Gryffindor (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Gryffindor: I do have an issue with it. I got into quite a long discussion here after some of my page moves were reverted by User:PBS I really thought it would be uncontroversial as House of is a neologism for Noble families that were not royal dynasties.
The discussion got no where so I dropped the subject. I don't know if there is any way of getting a consensus on this. Since Game of Thrones everyone seems to think that House and Family are synonyms! The Library of congress manual of style that User:Peaceray quotes seems to back up the use of "House of" for royal dynasties and what I noticed is that the Medicis had the title of Royal Highness. I personally would be for all noble families that were not royal dynasties losing the House of unless there is a sufficient number of sources pointing to this as its common name. That said common name should not take precedence over the correct name. Have a look here about Diana, Princess of Wales. There are over 23M Ghits for Princess Diana and only 674k for the article's title. I think that consistency is more important than common name for a single article. Domdeparis (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

--PBS (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@user:Gryffindor what sources are you using to support you statement that "house of" "only applies to ruling and sovereign dynasties, not some noble families". To take a working example the Arenberg Foundation uses the term "House of Arenberg". What source did you use to justify moving the page to Arenberg family? -- PBS (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

See also the article Fürst and the mention of Princely Houses. -- PBS (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@PBS, are you member of this family or what do you care? We have House of Windsor, or do you want to propose we rename Category:Wellesley family to "House of Wellesley"? Or maybe we should rename Bush family to "House of Bush"? Just because a family calls themselves "House of" on their homepage, does not mean we have to follow suit. What kind of an argument is this? Gryffindor (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I care because we should follow usage in reliable sources.
You have stated above Therefore we have House of Windsor, or do you want to propose we rename Category:Wellesley family. I am not proposing any "House/family" page is moved unless there are reliable sources to indicate that it should be re-titled. It is you who has moved dozens of such pages without any discussion about the sources used to support the move.
You assert "Within the Holy Roman Empire by law no one was sovereign except the emperor himself" that is debatable, but what is not debatable is that according to the article Fürst there were princely house the head of which governed lands within the Holy Roman Empire even if it was technically only suzerainty.
I have used the House of Arenberg as a test case to see if your assertion holds true in all cases. Part of the problem I have with you assertion is that we sill have the vestiges of a few minor states within Europe (eg Monaco, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein) which means that you seem to want to arbitrarily to winnow out all articles where the current house hold not sovereign lands, a rule made up without any recourse to secondary sources.
A further problem, I see with your assertion, is that the aristocracy has been abolished in many European states, and that complicates the issue (should the European Member of Parliament Karl von Habsburg be included in the article House of Habsburg or should the article be renamed Habsburg family? -- let the "sources be the guide"). However there is an article on Belgian nobility and there are families in that that are usually described as being members of a "House".
To answer your question ought we rename "Category:Wellesley family to "House of Wellesley", I would answer no because the usage in secondary sources do not support such a move. Would I support the moving of "Clan Maclean" to "Maclean family"? No, because the usage in secondary sources do not support such a move ("Another for Hector").
All I am proposingis that before you (or anyone else) move one of these House/family articles, is that rather than basing it on a formula that will have many exceptions, that the title of the article arrived at by the usage in reliable secondary sources as per the Article Titles Policy. -- PBS (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I would agree with Gryffindor. There are sufficient sources that point to the use of "House of" only in terms of royalty notably the different dictionary definitions and the Library of congress, to find a consensus I think. I agree that just because a foundation that has a member of a particular family as its president and uses the term "House of" or "maison de" when talking about his family is not sufficient. This is an associated source and as such not as reliable as secondary sources. It may be simply be sucking up to its president by applying this pompous term. I would also point out that the foundation has a strange way of applying this particular term "house". On its "about" page here in an approximative English it states its aim as "Encouragement of pan-European awareness of the roots of the peoples of Europe, important condition for the construction of the ‘House Europe’." This shows that it is rather fond of the use of the neologism "house" rather in the same way that the GB Olympic team is now called "Team GB" ...cringe. This in itself suggests that the use of the term on this web page may not be totally reliable. Domdeparis (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me Domdeparis that like Gryffindor you are approaching this from a formulaic point of view, with one size fits all. Otherwise why did you not do a search? If you had then one of the sources returned is:
  • Library of Congress Subject Headings. 2004. p. 1135. 
The same page includes "House of Austria" "Habsburg, House of". The LoC includes about a page and a half of these European Houses mixed in with things like "House of Homana (Fictitious characters) -- PBS (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The rule is quite simple. "House of" or "X dynasty" is used in encyclopedic diction only for hereditary sovereign ruling houses of independent countries. Hereditary non-sovereign families of territories that were not independent are not "House of". Call them "family" or "clan" or whatever. Also PBS, if there is no need to disambiguate among these families, then keep the article title simple, see here WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Gryffindor (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
PBS What I am trying to do is to see if there is a way of creating consensus to have a common and clear way of identifying families that are not royal dynasties. the list that you have provided contains the subject headings from 1898 to 2003 and as you have pointed out there are some oddities in there. The guidelines from 2013 are relatively clear. In my opinion if a subject about the Arenberg's was created today under these guidelines it would be Arenberg family unless one could argue that they were rulers of a region. from what i can gather from this is that the subject was created in 1989. If you look at the source it is "Die Arenberger" which means if I remember my schoolboy German "the Arenbergs". There are naming conventions for a large number of subjects in Wikipedia, we have guidelines from the LOC I really don't see why this is controversial to be honest. Domdeparis (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree entirely with PBS. I cannot see why we should arbitrarily shoehorn all articles on noble families into the most recent naming conventions of a single library. Rather than this Procrustean bed, why not follow the existing Wikipedia convention of seeing what is actually done in secondary sources discussing the topic? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
    • If you want to make a rule for the british nobility, go ahead, but you cannot push all noble traditions in 10 rule, i do not agree.--Carolus (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@Andreas Philopater: There is also an existing WP policy in the naming of articles that is called WP:CONSISTENCY is that not important? Also there is a question of using a title that is correct. When you search for "Princess Diana" you get over 24M Ghits, when you search for "Diana, Princess of Wales" you only get 600k Ghits. The first title is incorrect, but the overwhelming weight of the secondary sources should mean that we rename the article if we follow your logic, this proposal was opposed Talk:Diana,_Princess_of_Wales#Requested_move_2_September_2016. I would argue that seeing the number of Noble families that exist consistency is very important. There are sufficient sources that show that convention reserves House of for Royal families, when looking at a page for a noble family that is styled "house of" compared to another that is styled "family" it would be legitimate to assume that the first formed a royal dynasty whereas the second did not. I do not see why we should literally translate a foreign usage. The English page for Philippe of Belgium is called just that whereas the French page is Philippe (rois des Belges) or Philippe (king of the Belgians), in the same way that we do not call Lake Geneva, the Léman or Lake Léman. the naming conventions for each Wikipedia follow that of the language in which it is written and not the language of the foreign sources. If we follow the logic of Carolus then when talking about an heir apparent of the French monarchy we should translate it as the Dolphin, seems a little silly to me. Domdeparis (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:OTHER and red herrings. Dislike of Game of Thrones (or its fans) is no reason to restrict established English usage or to try to pretend that it is somehow foreign. OED "House" 10b = "A family including ancestors and descendants; a lineage, esp. a noble, royal, or wealthy dynasty having continuity of residence in a particular place." Nobody is saying "and you have to rename the article on Princess Diana", because nobody else is saying we should restrictively and doctrinairely apply a single narrow measure. Wikipedia's flexibility is a feature, not a bug. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
And consistency is of no importance ? Domdeparis (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
It has some importance, but not overriding importance. A tendency to absolutise is precisely the problem here. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Domdeparis, we need consistency. I don't see one logical argument so far as to why we should change these established encyclopedical naming standards. Gryffindor (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Except you're the one making changes, to apply a standard that is neither established nor particularly encyclopaedic. What you're doing here is known as begging the question. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
And making things worse, now there is a category:Hénin-Liétard, but perhaps if you would do some research Hénin-Liétard is the name of a village in France, no coïncidence that this noble house is named like the village. But because of this Cat Change, there is no difference between the Category for the Noble house and the one for the village. I can give you a list of several families who are named like a village or city or even a river like Category:Ligne... This is realy an improvment for wikipedia.--Carolus (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@User:Gryffindor "why we should change these established encyclopedical naming standards" what "encyclopedical naming standards"? -- PBS (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I used the House of Arenberg as a discussion point. Let's look at another the article House of Windsor—a title that I am sure we are all agreed does not need changing—but in it there is mention of two "parent" houses. Personally I think that is a mistake, but I am interested to know if user:Gryffindor or user:Domdeparis think that either the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha or House of Wettin should be moved to family. -- PBS (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why anyone would want to change the name of these articles. The house of Windsor was originally the House of Saxe Coburg and Gotha, so a royal house. The last kings of Saxony were members of the Wettin family so a royal house. These are perfect exemples of articles that should remain houses as they were royal families. I'm afraid I don't follow you. Do you have another exemple less obvious? What we are arguing is that there is a difference between a family that was a royal dynasty (rulers of Kingdoms or Principalities or a sovereign Duchy that had the status of a nation state) and a noble family that was not. The first are styled House and the second family. Domdeparis (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@PBS, this is not Game of Thrones. Encyclopedic formats and traditional naming rules state "House of x" applies to sovereign families of independent states/countries, or you can also use "X dynasty" such as "Ottonian dynasty". All others are simply known as families. If there is no disambiguation case, only the family name is used, without any additional words. Gryffindor (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@User:Gryffindor. As I have never watched Game of Thrones, I fail to see why you start a comment "@PBS, this is not Game of Thrones."; what are you trying to convey with that statement? I think you and Domdeparis are missing my point, I am neither for or against using "Hose of" or anything else, I am for following usage in reliable sources. I am against making up arbitrary rules, that may contradict usage in reliable sources. This is exactly the problem we used to have at WP:AT up until 27 June 2008 when User:Pmanderson made this change after discussion on the policy talk page. That change introduced the idea that we follow usage only in reliable sources (instead of usage in all sources good bad and indifferent). This simple change fixed lots of problems. Many of the naming conventions had been written with complicated rules that usually generated the name commonly used in reliable sources without the need to survey usage in reliable sources, but the rules also ended up generating article title that were no where near those in reliable sources about some subjects. For example NCROY was written is such a way that prevented common names like "Bloody Mary" being used in place of "Mary I of England (because "Bloody Mary" did not fit the rules), but it also meant that we had Gustav II Adolph of Sweden (Not a common name in reliable English Language sources). Once NCROY was change to follow usage in reliable sources, then the need to exclude names like "Bloody Mary" disappeared and the guidance could handle exceptions Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden (Latin name) and Elizabeth II (no realm), while the vast majority of article titles remained in the format the rules had tried to impose by a formulae "Name ordinal of realm" eg Henry VIII of England (because they marched the common name with disambiguation etc). It took a number of years and much persuasion before all the naming conventions were changed (see for example WP:FLORA where there was a mix up, due to a misunderstanding over COMMONNAME and the scientific "common name"). Using or not using "House of..." should be decided the same way: by usage in reliable sources, not through a formulae. -- PBS (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
There's little reasoning with fandom. If this is Game of Thrones-related, it could run and run. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
This is going round and round in circles. There are a large number sources that either say that house refers to a royal family or especially a royal family what we are trying to say is that using house of for a family that is not a royal family is confusing because of the small number of noble families that have been styled as such by editors like Carolus. What Gryffindor and I are saying that owing to the large number of noble family pages on Wikipedia consistency is important. The moniker house of adds another dimension to a family that makes it sound more important than simply family. The neutrality in a title is important as well and given the number of noble families styling one house of and another family given the different definitions of house of being especially royal this adds a non-neutral slant to the article. As there are very few people involved in this discussion I would suggest that we find another place to try and get a consensus.any suggestions? Domdeparis (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the mention.

It would help if those who claim that House of only applies to ruling or sovereign family would name some of their sources.

I feel personally that we should not overuse it; House for any British family below royalty seems pretentious. But House of Rohan, House of Esterhazy would seem to be common, even standard usage; and yet they have never been sovereigns. And House of Orleans was common *before* 1830. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

At 18:27, 20 March 2017 in the RM moves conversation linked at the top of this section User:Peaceray presented "The Library of Congress Subject Headings Manual for "H 1574 Dynasties, Royal Houses, etc" (PDF).  gives an example for the "House of Medici", again not a royal house." It does however lay down rules that are in my opinion very confusing. It does not really make it clear if it is talking about only contemporary royal families or any family that has ever held sovereign territory and what about lands held in suzerainty. For example the article Fürst and the mention of Princely Houses and what amounts to suzerainty within the Holy Roman Empire. Also does a family given sovereignty over a state in Napoleon's empire belong to a house while an equally noble family that was not in his favour not get Wikipedia's rule based approval as a House? It seems that the Library of Congress has altered its advice, because I bought up Library of Congress Subject Headings. 2004. p. 1135.  (see my posting at 11:35, 25 August 2017). As I have repeatedly suggested Wikipedia is a tertiary source so we do not have to make up rules over names let the reliable secondary sources determine the name to use, as it cuts through the complications that rules bring. So by all means suggest a move of a page from House of to family or vice versa, but base it on usage in reliable sources not rules.-- PBS (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
My personal perspective is that "House of" is arbitrary & is used by those who end up as royalty of some flavor as a means of manufacturing a pedigree to justify their rule. If there is confusion, blame the rulers, not the librarians. Using that simple definition of "House of" being any lineage from which Kings, Queens, Dukes, Duchesses, & etc. derive, I fail to see the justification for renaming House of Borgia, House of Medici, House of Savoy, House of Visconti, or House of Zähringen.
Pertaining to this discussion, please read my comments at Talk:House of Visconti#"House of" & Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 29#House of where I have presented citations & pertinent Wikilinks. I also recommend WP:COMMONNAME. Remember that for all pedigrees of dogs, the root ancestor is something we would today identify as a mutt.
Peaceray (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
So far LoC is the only reliable source cited for the proposed restrictive rule, while numerous reliable sources indicate wider usage. I do wonder if the Americans are the best guides to aristocratic nomenclature, since they don't actually have to live with these people. Given the range of usage in the sources, I still see no reason to deviate from the OED's wider use of "house" for royal, noble and merchant houses (when specific sources agree, clearly: I no more want to go through changing everything to "house", for the sake of a superficial consistency, than I want to see people go through and change everything away from "house"). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 07:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the relevant policy is "Use commonly recognizable names." In each case we should use the term "House of" if that is the one most commonly used in reliable sources or, line, dynasty or family, or other description if it is more common. As a general observation, electors, kings, and other rulers within the Holy Roman Empire were considered to be on the same level as sovereigns who owed no allegiance to him. TFD (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Editors should be aware that User:Gryffindor is mass-moving articles from "House of Foo" to "Foo family" despite a polite intervention on his talk page and the lack of consensus on this. In fact, there appears to be conventional use of "House of" for noble families from at least count to duke - see dynasty. Certainly there is no justification for mass moves without a discussion and consensus. Bermicourt (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@Bermicourt: Do you have a source (apart from wikipedia) that house of is used conventially for counts and dukes? This comment is not sourced in the article and looks like WP:OR on the part of the person who added it. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
My main point is that we shouldn't be mass moving articles from their current title without either a general consensus for all articles or an individual consensus for each article. Otherwise chaos will reign. But if you have authoritative sources that say "house" is restricted to royalty, do cite them. Meanwhile if you do even a quick search online for "House of Foo" you will find books that use it as the convention for noble families ranging from the Huntlys in Scotland to the Alvenslebens in Germany, both noble, neither royal. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
How about this one [3]? Dom from Paris (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
If you do a quick search for Princess Diana there are literally millions of sources that refer to Diana Princess of Wales as such (far more than the WP article title) but oddly the page here on WP is not named as such. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, you're just illustrating my point. This issue is contentious and unresolved and there is no consensus for blanket moves. And BTW your source is a random extract with no indication of author, publisher, etc. which is not really very authoritative. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry my fault for assuming you had read the above conversation. loc.gov is the website for the Library of Congress the de facto national library of the United States of America. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
No need for sarcasm. I saw it was on the LOC site. The fact that a document sits in a library, doesn't make it authoritative. Libraries hold comics. But you haven't commented on the main point yet. Any thoughts there? --Bermicourt (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
My apologies but I really think that you haven't followed this subject in detail. The document is an extract from the Library of Congress Subject Headings manual (SHM) which is the way that the Library of Congress classifies subjects. It is the bible for their librairians to help them classify and register new and existing documents and subjects. it dates from 2013 and they are reclassifying gradually the existing documents that do not meet the manual which is why some older documents do not comply. This is the offical guideline drawn up by the offical United States Library for classifying nearly 170 million documents. To be honest I thought I had answered your main point because you asked me for an authoritive source to justify the the WP:BOLD editing by User:Gryffindor as I have already said I agree with him. WP:CONSISTENCY is important. I apologise again because I didn't realise that you didn't know what my document was I should have been clearer. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I have yet to see anyone address the inconsistency with House of Medici that is also listed in the LC heading as Medici, House of yet was not a kingly house as I understand it. The highest title any of the male line held seems to have been a Duke. If we allow the House of Medici title to stand, then any other family with a Duke (or a Duchess who is an unmarried woman in her own right) is fair game for the "House of" moniker. (Unless we use WP:COMMONSENSE & go with WP:COMMONNAME, in which case there are a lot of articles that should be moved back to "House of". )
So who's doing the House of Medici move to Medici family?
Peaceray (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Peaceray you have chosen a family that ruled the republic of Florence and is exactly the kind of family that should be called a house. Florence was a state. I am not saying there can't be exceptions either as per commonname but this has to be exceptional. I keep coming back to poor old Diana why is the common name Princess Diana not the title of the article. House of is commonly used for rulers and occasionally for other families. I would say that unless there is an overwhelming number of sources that show that a particular family that has not ruled an independent state (such as Florence) then Gryffendor's moves are perfectly legitimate and should not be reverted. Debretts and Burke's do not use house of to describe families with the exception of monarchies. If we follow your logic then any family with any title can have a page house of if there are a couple of RS that use it. Once again almost all sources that talk of Diana call her Princess Diana...are you ready to do that move?Dom from Paris (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

For info: in the Holy Roman Empire all manner of entities were, in effect, sovereign states, from baronies, through counties, margraviates, landgraviates to dukedoms. Even a small territory could be 'imperially immediate' and thus report directly to the Emperor, whose own sovereignty was often limited. But that aside, the sources, frequently use "House of" for families ruling entities less than a kingdom. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I can only reiterate what I have stated previously before. Non-sovereign families are not considered "House of X". While I understand this might be handled differently in Latin countries like Italy and Spain, that is certainly not the case in German-speaking countries and other parts of central and eastern and northern Europe. If it is a sovereign ruling house of an independent country such as "House of Wettin" (not Wettin family) which ruled the independent and sovereign Kingdom of Saxony (1806-1918), that is something different. But apart from that, no. And I agree with the arguments above that during the Holy Roman Empire, only families that emperors came from can be considered either "House of X" or "X dynasty". But any other baronial, comital, or other families are not. Gryffindor (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
And "I can only reiterate" that this kind of policy is not actually what Wikipedia uses. WP:COMMONNAME is. If a non-sovereign family is referred to as "House of X", it should be at House of X. If a ruling family is referred to some other non-House way (e.g. Tokugawa clan) it should be at whatever that is. Gryffindor's proposed standard is especially tricky because what, exactly, qualifies as "sovereign"? The House of Albret is actually at Albret, but they DID rule in Navarre and eventually France. The answer for ANY of these contested moves is to examine what the sources use, and mimic them. That's it. SnowFire (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear here that no consensus will be made, but just to add my two cents: the term "house of ..." rather than "... family" also has linguistic origins, I think. In all my research of medieval France, it is universally "House of ..." I believe this derives from the exclusive use of "Maison de ..." to refer to noble houses in the French sources. This may also reflect the fact that French noble families did not often use their surnames in any official capacity. Meanwhile in England, noble houses are more generally known by their family names, especially since surnames became commonplace as early as the fifteenth century. Germany and Italy, I believe, follow closely with France and I feel it could be safely said that most continental noble families probably would use "House of ..." rather than family. I certainly have never heard of the Zähringen family, but I have heard of the House of Zähringen. In France, it is the House of Armagnac, not the Armagnac family. I have heard of the House of Borgia but not the Borgia family. And even in Spain, it is the House of Lara, not the Lara family. I think this argument has forgotten about Britain-continent differences in syntax and I think this is really where this argument falls.  – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 22:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Whaleyland: you may want to widen your research a little. The Encycopedia Britannica (what might be called a RS I think) calls it the Borgia family here and also BTW the Medici family the editors on the Italian WP just call it Borgia most sources that talk about the family simply call them "The Borgias". Here's the thing "The Borgias" gets 436k GHits, "Borgia Family" gets 97k GHits and wait for it... "House of Borgia" 62k GHits. We do not choose article names on our own personal experience but on naming conventions or failing that the principals of WP:COMMONNAME Dom from Paris (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@Domdeparis: Interesting to note regarding the Borgias and Medici. But it doesn't necessarily disprove my point – it could just be that Italian noble families are also often categorised under "... family" rather than "House of ..." by historians. It doesn't disprove my argument, it just suggests that British academic circles have adopted similar naming conventions for Italian noble houses. Considering Italian families also had surnames from an earlier date than the rest of Europe and that they had a more tight-knit governmental structure dependent on family loyalties, this actually makes a lot of sense.  – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 21:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I have been living in France for some 25 years now and quite a few of my friends and acquaintances come from noble families and I have never heard any of them refer to their families as being "maison de" and I think if you check out the sources on French noble families you will find that despite what you say the sources do not exclusively use "Maison de". Try looking up "famille d'Harcourt" one of the oldest and most illustrious French aristocratic families and despite the title of the Fr Wikipedia page most references use famille and not maison. I used to work with one of its members and I never heard him refer to his family as a maison. From my own personal family experience I have never heard anyone refer to the house of instead of family. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I just wrote a doctoral thesis on late medieval French history and I never came across the term "famille" to refer to any medieval noble house. This makes me think that it may also be a period-specific issue. Since there is no monarchy in France today, it wouldn't make sense for modern noble houses to call themselves "House of ..." That would just come across as pretentious. If you check the French Wikipedia page on Harcourt again, I see about half the sources say "Maison d'Harcourt" and half say "Famille d'Harcourt." Both the "famille d'Harcourt" sources are from the past 100 years, but two out of three of the "Maison d'harcourt" sources are before then (although one is from 2013). More generally, though, I can only speak from my own experience. When it comes to French medieval history, all noble families are "Maison d'..." when discussed formally, although they can certainly be referred to as families informally. As I said before, I don't see a likely solution to this Wikipedia-wide inconsistency and I think there are likely too many variables and unique cases to ever really find one. – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 00:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Whaleyland: would you oppose or consider it reasonable if a page that contains little or no sources that attest to a family being commonly known as house of were moved to family? Dom from Paris (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
As long as there are sources to support the term "family" and not an equal number of similar sources using the term "house," I see no problem with moving pages around. – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 00:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Whaleyland: I have just made a move request Talk:House_of_Baillet#Requested_move_16_April_2018 following a move from family back to House of. there are no sources attesting to it bieng known as "House of". Maybe you'd like to contribute? Dom from Paris (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@User:Whaleyland I have just rerun the search that User:Domdeparis did higher up this thread (at 12:12, 13 April 2018). Using Google Books and restricting the search to the 21st century the numbers come out as: "The Borgia" zero, "House of Borgia" 12 "Borgia family" 13. Those sorts of numbers do not indicate that either house/family format is more common in modern sources (indicating that moving it from the established name is not appropriate). I have not looked at the quality of those sources (it might show that all of those for one or the other are not reliable sources (eg novels etc). Also this was an example search to make a point, restricting the search to 21st century, is easy (two clicks) although restricting it to about 25 years (1/4 century) is probably more appropriate. More weighting ought to be given to a book written in the last 25 years or so than one written 250 years ago, and one ought to look at Google Scholar as well (while ignoring the results of a general Google search of the web). Of course Google searches of books and scholar, are only indicative of usage in reliable sources and may not always be accurate or appropriate -- particularly when the number of hits relatively few. -- PBS (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@PBS:, and @Whaleyland: I think there must be a problem with google books search because when I search for "The BorgiaS" the first in the list is a book from 2013 and loads more 2011 first published in 2008 2011 2012 2002 2014 the list is enormous. I get the same kind of results as you when i restrict it to the 21st century which make me think that this is not a very reliable method for searching in Google books. And also I don't see why we should restrict our searches for books to the 21st century. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Searching for "The BorgiaS" instead of "The Borgia" returns 21 books not all of them reliable. User:Domdeparis you are retuning books from French Google books -- not sure if that makes a difference also one can sort by date on a general search instead of relevance which as you point out seems to return more books, for the 21st centry although many of them are not realevant. -- PBS (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
See below "#Unless I use a vpn Google" for continuation of this thread.
Since this has been mentioned before, I have to say when I saw the articles listed in the German families, there were four to five different naming format. Apart from the two established ones (House of X or X family) there were others with strange disambiguations formats, the "von" was added in some but not in others, and another article had all four possible names listed. Nevertheless I did not see any serious discussion to address this wide range of different formats and therefore took the initiative to streamline and try to bring order into it. So I don't understand why this was seen as acceptable or not something worth addressing. Either way, I will stop moving these articles and leave it. I would like to point out as well that I used to in the past think as well that the "House of X" format was the right one, but over time noticed that it was not established, and therefore I have the opinion now that I am voicing. Gryffindor (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@DomdeParis. No, your presuming your default format where there is little guidance from the sources. I'd say if the majority of well known noble families are mostly referred to as "House of" then that is the default format. As an aside there is an inherent problem with the "Foo family" format anyway in that it doesn't distinguish between the noble and ordinary families. German Wikipedia at least makes this clear by using Adelgeschlecht i.e. "noble family". I have no problem with "Foo family" being used for a famous, non-noble family. I suspect more research is needed before we can reach a consensus and that won't happen overnight. Bermicourt (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
House of is most definitely not the default format! There are enough sources and opinions to show that some believe this should be reserved for royal families even if others disagree. How about Foo (noble family) for those that do not have enough sources to show that house of is the commonname? Dom from Paris (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I basically agree with Bermicourt however I suspect that there is a cultural problem here. When the USA was set up there was a debate over what the title of the US president should be should he be described as "Your excellency" or some other title. The one that was adopted for Washington was Mr. President (How ‘His Highness’ George Washington Became ‘Mr. President’ by H.G. Unger (16 April 2014). Once one realises this the use of "Mr. President" or "President Trump" takes on a whole new meaning (they are the British Equivalent of "Your Majesty" and "Queen Elizabeth"). To this day many Americans invert the “the contempt, the scorn and the derision” that US Senators thought European monarchies would have if the President did not have a pompous form of address. This is coupled with the problem that in the British tradition there are only two classes, nobles (aristocrats with the right to sit in the house of lords) and commoners. So in Britain take the example of Spencer we have Spencer (surname) and Spencer family. I think that family as a dab extension is a problem, as there is difference between nobility and gentry (who in some areas of the continent would have held a lesser level of nobility). For example families of baronets who were never ennobled, but played a prominent part in counties sometimes for centuries are not the same as the Holy Roman Empire concept of Imperial Knight. Should the families of Imperial Knights be in dab extensions that incorporate "nobility"? I think this whole area needs more consideration. One "rule" we could look at is similar to that of only incorporating the most important realm for monarchs and simply use a dab extension of their most "important" title eg Counts of Castell or Castell (counts); or Eltz or Eltz (Imperial knights). -- PBS (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The Germans, and possibly others, also distinguish various categories of noble family: for example, the Hochadel (royal, princely and ducal) and Niederer Adel (lesser nobility); or the Uradel (ancient nobility) - who can trace their titles to before the 14th C - and the Briefadel (lit.: "letter nobility) who were the Johnny-come-latelies. Meanwhile in Scotland, which we have not discussed, "House of", seems to be commonly used for noble families, several book titles referring to e.g. the "House of..." Huntly, Ochiltree, Douglas, Stuart, etc. However, the current articles seem to pick a lordly title and are named e.g. "Dukes of". That's fine if all the nobles in the family were dukes, but in the case of Marquess of Huntly (why singular, when the others are plural?) the early members of the family were earls not marquesses. I agree that the current naming of noble families is inconsistent, but the situation is sufficiently complicated that making policy on the hoof is unwise and we ought to devote our initial efforts to genuinely finding out what the sources use. That may well be different for different countries and eras, and vary from author to author. In fact, the same author, in writing a history of the Foos might call them the counts of Foo in one place, the Foo family in another and the House of Foo in another, all being more or less interchangeable. From our research, however, we may be able to discern the valid alternatives and then think about other factors like consistency, accuracy (i.e. not using "counts of Foo" if half the family members are landgraves) and intelligibility. It's easy to get exasperated because we can't get everyone to agree our own position, but that's often because the answer isn't black and white. I'm willing to focus on German (really Holy Roman Empire) nobility in order to make a contribution. Bermicourt (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── See Talk:House of Baillet#Requested move 16 April 2018 where this discussion is being continued with an example. -- PBS (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


Thread continued from "#Searching for The BorgiaS..." above

@PBS:Unless I use a vpn Google always chucks back a dot fr link but it's not the search that I was pointing to but the fact that are a lot of relevent books from the 21st century with The Borgias as a title. So if you found 21 with the same title this is roughly twice as common than the others (you didn't mention if the books were more reliable in the other searches I presume that the ratio reliable/unreliable is similar). Interestingly one of the authors, Christopher Hibbert has also previously written a book with House of Borgia. Your point about the searches from before the 21st century throwing up few references to House of is interesting. I wonder if the massive global influence of GOT means that "house of Foo" or simply "house Foo" is entering into the common conscience as the accepted way of describing noble families. Language evolves and it is influenced by so many things. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You can set the country in Google Books [Setting]->[Search Settings]->[Region Settings]. The search I did (for all three) was on content (mention in text) not the title.-- PBS (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Fashion on names change, "Civil War" or "Great Rebellion" worked well until the "American Civil War" when British book titles had to start to use "English Civil War" to disambiguate. More recently the use of "English" in the title has been seen as problematic so the name "War of the Three Kingdoms" has become more popular particularly as British in this context is ambiguous (England and Scotland were not in a political union at the time, so Great Britain was not a political entity). However as a general rule it takes a long time to the name of an historic event to change names (eg it is still commonly the Battle of Stalingrad and the Siege of Leningrad). While popular culture may have an influence it is often marginal eg the Great Trek has not changed because of Star Trek, although I do not know if the Rape of Nanking is named after the book of the same name by Iris Chang or vise versa. -- PBS (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Rohan Status[edit]

I was editing the page of Victoire de Rohan and took notice of her designation as "royalty" (perceived ignorance of the "nobility" tag), while the House of Rohan were longtime members of the French nobility. Her designation and those of her forebears were changed. However it was discovered that the Rohan enjoyed the ambiguous status of "foreign princes" under the style "Highness", claiming that they are either related to or are descended from the Dukes of Brittany.

It would be rightly argued that deposed royals maintain their rank regardless of political changeover, however the House of Brittany was not deposed – instead merging through marriage with the House of France. The succession of the two dominions converging in Henri II of France by way of his parents, Francis I of France and Claude, Duchess of Brittany.

Are the Rohan to be designated as royals of Breton ancestry, or as nobles within the unified Kingdom of France?
- Conservatrix (talkcontribs) 02:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Prince need not imply royalty in French - and the dukes, counts, and princes of Rohan were never rulers of Brittany - not that that matters; this is long after the Breton union.
See also the second paragraph of your article; the subject was of much lower rank than her sister, the princess de Conde. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The Houses of Condé and Contí are royal by their relation to the ruling family. If the Rohan are indeed related to the Dukes of Brittany, then they too would be royal within the sovereign Duchy of Brittany. The question is whether royalty transfers after having been annexed into a foreign realm and admitted to the foreign nobility. - Conservatrix (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The House of Rohan enjoyed a status intermediate between royalty and nobility in France, which is why they held the (deliberately) ambiguous rank of prince étranger along with the House of La Trémoïlle, and other families which were not royal, even outside France, but exercised some of the prerogatives of sovereignty. The La Rochefoucauld family sought and failed to obtain recognition as PE, despite having a history similar to that of the Rohans. The princes étrangers were the French equivalent of Germany/Austria's Mediatized families: that class whose once-upon-a-time semi-sovereign status was acknowledged and preserved by the Austrian and German Empires at the Congress of Vienna in lieu of actually returning them to independence and sovereign power. The Almanach de Gotha did not try to force the latter into its pages among royalty nor among the ducal/princely nobility, rather it created a section for them all their own, commonly referred to nowadays as the "Gotha's section 2 families", between royalty and nobility. But if you insist upon a classification, the Rohans were legally members of the nobility in France. FactStraight (talk) 07:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Question about rank of spouses of British peers[edit]

A question has arisen about the titles given to American spouses of British peers, in the introduction of Mary Curzon, Baroness Curzon of Kedleston. Can a knowledgeable person sort it? Many thanks, Kablammo (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, for a start I don't think Vicereine of India is an "official title". It's just the informal name sometimes given to the wife of the Viceroy. In Britain we don't tend to give official titles to spouses of officials. So I don't think the sentence is at all accurate or really necessary. Her only actual title was baroness, and that only by marriage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Her official title was Baroness. "Vicereine" was a bit like "First Lady." It was an informal title with no official standing. It would be more accurate to say that she attained the highest place in British society up to that point by an American. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
If she did. I'm pretty sure there were Americans married to more senior peers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
There's a reference to the topic in Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom#Wives of peers. The wife of a peer or viceroy is considered to have a legal title. That probably derives from the ancient concept that the legal personality of a wife is merged into that of her husband. The U.S. Title of Nobility Clause btw does not prevent Americans from taking foreign titles. TFD (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Wallis Simpson for example. TFD (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
To get back to the question, a source says that Lady Curzon achieved the highest title of any American in the UK. The reasoning is that viceroy was a title midway between royalty and nobility and was shared with his wife as vicereine. I don't know if that is true or not, but think that such a claim would require an expert source, which is not the case here. The claim was made by the author of a book, Famous American belles of the nineteenth century, published in 1900. TFD (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Governors-General had and have no place in the UK order of precedence - why would they, given that the point of their office is to represent the Sovereign outside the UK? So in Britain Lady Curzon would have ranked as the wife of a very junior baron and therefore after other Americans such as Consuelo, Duchess of Manchester and Lady Randolph Churchill. However there was a separate order of precedence for India, and the Viceroy and his wife certainly did outrank everyone else there, including all peeresses, who ranked after wives of Members of the Council of the Governor-General. Opera hat (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Her married life was spent there, in India, once her husband was appointed. They left in 1905 when she was in ill health and so young, and she died in 1908 in England. She seemed to be quite active in supporting industry from her position as vicereine. That one source is all I have found on line, out of copyright and thus easy to find. It is her position in India that is pertinent, I think, not the baroness title so much, as to why she gained a reputation for working with her husband to be effective as viceroy. I was hoping to find a contemporary news article, if not another book, that discussed her more, but no luck so far. --Prairieplant (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Clarified to say she was ranking Peeress of the Indian Empire. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Note that as far as I can ascertain, the common "title" (as far as it was such) was Viceregal Consort and not Vicereine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Question over legitimist succession (Bourbon v Orleanist)[edit]

There is a discussion over how to address the split between the Orleanist and Bourbon claims to the throne of France. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC : When to use the term "royal family" in the title[edit]

After some three weeks of debate, the majority of participants disagree with the proposal. Therefore, no changes nor additions to the currently prevailing rules are to be made. -The Gnome (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Background The typical practice in Wikipedia so far is to have families that currently rule as monarchs over a nation denoted as "royal families" of the respective nation. Examples: British royal family for the United Kingdom; Swedish royal family for Sweden; Norwegian royal family for Norway; Spanish royal family for Spain; and so on. (Note that Wikipedia recognizes the House of Bourbon-Anjou as the Spanish royal family, since that is the royal family currently on the throne of Spain, despite the significant existence of supporters of a separate line of the Bourbon dynasty.)

On the other hand, families which have historically ruled as monarchs over a nation in the past are denoted in Wikipedia as "houses of [family name]", or similar notations, avoiding the term "royal." Examples: House of Savoy, for Italy; House of Romanov for Russia; the House of Habsburg for Austria; and so on.

Proposal We should translate the current practice into a universally applied rule (in words to that effect) :

Only families whose members are actually, currently ruling as monarchs (in any regime, from constitutional monarchy to absolute monarchy) should be denoted as "royal families" in the title of their respective Wikipedia articles. Articles on all other families, irrespective of how long or recently these families have ruled as monarchs, should have in their title the appropriate surname of the family only, denoted as "house of" or similar.

-The Gnome (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree or disagree?[edit]

Vote Tally
Agree: 6
Disagree: 9

  • Disagree Your proposal is unclear. It appears to nationalize monarchy in alluding to the state being separate from the Sovereign. The families are royal regardless of state recognition as they derive authority from divine mandate and not public approval. Further, there are only three claimants to the throne of France: Louis Alphonse (House of Bourbon); Henri d'Orléans (House of Orléans); Jean-Christophe (House of Bonaparte).
    The Bourbon and Orléans claimants are Capetian dynasts. This is considered elementary in complexity, and this display of frank ignorance is concerning enough that I vote to oppose.
    - Conservatrix (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
seriously? royal families derived their status from force of arms by taking control of an area or country killing the opposition and proclaiming themselves king. עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Strange women, laying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government Chris Troutman (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Your edit summary: lol; you don't vote for kings
Kings and Grand Dukes of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth are by tradition elected in sejm, and the Doge of Venice (from the Latin dux, meaning "duke") is elected by a committee of forty appointed by the Great Council. Early Medieval kingdoms elected their kings, including Hugh Capet, as was the Holy Roman Emperor. - Conservatrix (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Conservatrix: Hi. I see you're a new editor. Anytime you see a blue link, you should see what's being linked to. My edit summary is mostly another quote from a movie, which you would realize had you examined it. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Check your link before offering condescending remarks. I have been an anonymous editor for years. - Conservatrix (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Chris Troutman Commenting is unfailingly appreciated, but, especially in RFCs, voting even more so. :-) The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Not in the three cases under discussion here. The founders of the Bulgarian, Greek and Romanian royal houses were all elected by national assemblies. DrKay (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Allowing others to speak up on Bulgaria and Romania, I will comment briefly on the founding of the Greek throne. Its first occupant in modern times, the Bavarian Otto Friedrich Ludwig, was forced upon the newly independent nation by the "Great Powers" of the time (as was the royal regime itself).
The current claimants, from the House of Glücksburg, first climbed up to the throne after the Great Powers refused the Greeks' choice for a monarch and offered them Prince William of Denmark, a person who had previously received six (6) votes in the popular vote. Subsequently, and without the Greek people or their political leaders having any other choice, the Greek Parliament affirmed the ascension of the 17-year old to the throne. The royals in Greece were subsequently the cause of a chronic and deep schism within Greek society and political life, were kicked out by popular demand, time and again, and then tried to climb up again through either coups or highly irregular plebiscites. A rather sorry record, theirs.
In any case, we are not discussing here any specific throne. This is an RfC about article-name convention. -The Gnome (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
These are the only three articles that would be moved on the basis of the proposed naming convention. DrKay (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC0)
Thanks for pointing that out. So, is there something qualitatively different about these three articles? None as far as one can see. They have simply been allowed to remain as they were; a matter of either inertia, or more probably ideology, as the articles' histories indicate (and as some comments here, or elsewhere, have unintentionally made clear). If anything, the very existence of those three articles seems to support the proposal! -The Gnome (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Being wrong about the status of a royal family does not translate into being wrong about a proposal about Wikipedia convention. (The info about the families contesting the non existent French throne were lifted from their respective Wikipedia articles. Perhaps too lightly.) Nonetheless, if you find the proposal "unclear" you should demand that it be clarified before deciding on it, don't you think?
As to the notion about "divine mandates," well, that is a self-serving argument only invoked by monarchs (and monarchists), without any real-life foundation, I'm afraid. But, again, the proposal is not about ideology; merely of convention. -The Gnome (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@The Gnome: I will not consider proposals that seek to diminish royal dignity. As to the monarchist comment: My wig is large, proud, and generously powdered. En garde, mon petit sans-culotte! - Conservatrix (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
You've already made it rather obvious that your position is dictated by ideology, and little else, but thanks for confirming this. The honesty is appreciated. Noblesse oblige! -The Gnome (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@The Gnome: Noblesse oblige? Louis was sent to the blade for such charity! There exists a fine line between tolerance and capitulation, that line is moral compromise.
- Conservatrix (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 :-) IMVVHO, Louie and his gal Mary went to the guillotine unfairly, emportés by the vicious winds of the times. Looking back, we see that Bastille, when it was stormed in the 14th of July, was practically empty of prisoners. And poor Louie, truly, had been after the good of the French people much more than his predecessors. But, about the French Revolution, perhaps, as Zhou Enlai responded to Henry Kissinger when asked about its effect on human history, we should also respond, "It's too early to tell". -The Gnome (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
How will we redirect contested successions? - Conservatrix (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@Conservatrix: - Good point!
Royal Families of Nations pages - Articles titled Royal Family of X or National Royal Family (e.g. Royal family of Morocco, Royal Family of Spain or British Royal Family), should be avoided in countries that no longer practice monarchy or recognize a monarch as head of state. In those countries, Royal Family of X should be avoided or redirected to the last uncontested ruling family of that country. For example, Russian Royal Family redirects to House of Romanov. Royal Family of Austria is not a page, but House of Habsburg is. NickCT (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment there are a number of articles on noble families that were not rulers that use "House of" in the title, as far as I understand the use of "House of" is almost exclusively reserved for ruling families as per the Library of Congress. This problem was addressed already here but I can't see if there was a concensus reached. The suggestion was that common name should apply but I also believe that consistancy is important. From what I understand from the proposal "House of" should be added to families once ruled but no longer do. If this is the case then what about (amongst many others) House of Cavendish or House of Burke House of Grey House of Longe, none of these were ruling familes but if sufficient sources exist refering to them with the rather pompous "House of" then we are stuck with it according to some editors. Domdeparis (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
But what about the House of Commons? When have they ever ruled? :-) The Gnome (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment As I noted at the original RfC on Greece, I don't think all previously royal families are named as houses, for instance Romanian royal family. However, I think this could be a good idea as a general rule, but I don't really have the experience to know.
Thank you, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Good point GreyGreenWhy. There seem to be a couple exceptions to the rule we're trying to enunciate above. I think that's why we're trying to create the rule. So that we can make the naming more consistent. NickCT (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
My proposal does not affect how we should denote each family with a historical record of reigning. The term "house of [family name]" is used only as an example. We could use whatever term is chosen by editors, under Wikipedia naming rules. My proposal is about the distinction we need to make between currently reigning families and formerly reigning families. That is all there is to it. -The Gnome (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
NickCT and GreyGreenWhy sorry to insist but if it's consistency that we are aiming at and we use "House of" for formerly reigning families to differentiate them from ruling families what do we do with "house of" pages for families that have never reigned? Do we rename them? for example "House of Cavendish" to "Cavendish family"? Domdeparis (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
When the term "house [of]" is used to denote some family genealogy the term does not imply that the family has ruled as monarchs in the past; "houses" include royal families but not only royal families. A no longer ruling family becomes simply a distinguished, notable family - and it is thusly denoted in the encyclopaedia. -The Gnome (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Domdeparis: - Never apologize for insisting! In my mind, we're not looking for consistency on formerly reigning families. We're looking for consistency in handling countries that presently have reigning monarchies versus those that don't.
If we wanted consistency on formerly reigning families, maybe that's another discussion? NickCT (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah @NickCT: that's not what I understand from the proposal, which says "Articles on all other families, irrespective of how long or recently these families have ruled as monarchs, should have in their title the appropriate surname of the family only, denoted as "house of" or similar." It is about the families that were once the royal family of a country regardless of whether the country has a reigning monarch or not. If we are limiting it to renaming the few pages about former ruling families from countries that are no longer monarchies such as Greece and Romania then I think that it should be relatively simple. If in the case of these 2 pages where the families are branches of other larger families then I would suggest Royal House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (Monarchs of Romania) or Royal House of Glücksburg (Monarchs of Greece)Domdeparis (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Domdeparis As the nominator, I should perhaps explain: When a country has a monarch (across all the spectrum of monarchical regimes, from the ones where the throne is purely figurative to the ones where the monarch rules with absolute authority), the ruling family should be designated as "Royal family of [country]" (or linguistic variations thereof, e.g. "British royal family"). When a country is a democracy, then the family or families that have been on the throne in the past should be designated as a "house" (or variants, e.g. "dynasty", "family", etc).
Ok but I think that the real problem is not the name of the pages but the content. The British Royal family page should be more about the concept than the actual members themselves but seems to concentrate on the present dynasty ie The Windsors. A Royal family is a photograph of the members at any given time so will evolve with marriages births and deaths. The pages should in reality be very short descriptions of what constitutes a Royal family as per a country's traditions or legal texts and could conceivably contain a list of present members but in my mind no past members. If this were the case then a page titled "Russian Royal Family" would be different to "The House of Romanov". "Greek Royal family" would talk about the concept and eventually list the last members of a Greek Royal Family rather than the Greek Royal Family and The British Royal Family would contain other information about the status of past members for example those who entered by marriage but left by divorce regardless of the dynasty or the status of illegitimate children of the monarch etc etc. Domdeparis (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I think that what you describe as the content of a page titled "Greek royal family" is appropriate for the "History of the Greek royals", which is entirely legitimate and acceptable. The title "[of country] royal family", however, points always to a specific family, as it should. This is why we have that title in articles about extant kingdoms, such as Denmark, Sweden, Spain, etc. -The Gnome (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Some families are historically prominent for being bankers (such as the Rothschild family), others for having served in political office (the Kennedy family), still others for having sat on the throne (the Capetian dynasty), and so on. -The Gnome (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Disagree Articles should be titled according to the Wikipedia:Article titles guideline, which generally means they are at their commonest unambiguous name. DrKay (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@DrKay: - Have you read Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)? I think we're a little beyond WP:COMMONNAME.
Regardless, I think using terms like "Greek royal family" is sorta anachronistic, b/c there essentially is no greek royal family any longer. If sources use that term, they're probably only doing so b/c that's the last thing the family was called. But it's not really technically correct...
I'm usually a big advocate for WP:COMMONNAME, but given this topic already has its own set of naming conventions, there doesn't seem to be much harm here. NickCT (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@DrKay: The "commonest unambiguous name" for a family is, one would presume, the family name. Isn't it? -The Gnome (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe. In which case, why are you arguing for a new convention when common name suffices? We don't need a new convention. If it is the commonest unambiguous name for the topic, just do requested moves on the basis of common name. If you're right, the suggested addition is unnecessary WP:CREEP and the three articles it affects will be moved on the basis of current conventions. DrKay (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm suggesting a rule because the distinction is typically made based on editors' political convictions and ideology carried over into Wikipedia nmenclature, as is plainly evident by the relevant discussions in articles such as the three mentioned. Even here, where we are not debating about a specific family's article, we see votes cast on the basis of political beliefs! Nothing to do with rules or convention. (E.g. "The families are royal [because] they derive authority from divine mandate"; "I will not consider proposals that seek to diminish royal dignity"; etc.) If we have this enormous amount of noise and bickering every time in every case, then we clearly need a rule. WP:CREEP does not apply.- -The Gnome (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Disgree The premise is wrong. There are separate articles for the British royal family and the House of Windsor, the current dynasty. I think the distinction may be that the families of reigning monarchs have higher profiles. Also, Princess Victoria was part of the royal family as granddaughter of George III, but reigned as part of different dynasty. So the terms are not interchangeable. In any case general policy is to use common names rather than consistency. TFD (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@TFD: The extent of public notability ("profile") of a reigning family is indeed significantly greater than that of a formerly reigning family. And this fact supports the argument for using a different notation for each category. If ever the United Kingdom becomes a republic, there would be no need for an article about a (no longer extant) "British royal family"; only the article about the history of the British monarchy and the one about the House of Windsor would remain. -The Gnome (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
TFD - Think you may be missing the point. You hit the nail on the head when you say "the terms are not interchangeable". The term, "British royal family" or "Royal family of X" is usually used to refer to the current set of monarchs in a country. If there are no current monarchs, why use the term? Re "In any case general policy is to use common names" - Absolutely. But given we already have Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility), it seems like this is a subject that is mostly governed guidelines specific to the subject. NickCT (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree conditionally as a monarchist like my bewigged friend User:Conservatrix I believe that simply calling these former ruling families "House of family" would diminish the status of the family and put them on the same level as other family pages that use "House of". I would suggest using "Royal House of..." as a way of identifying the former ruling families and differentiating them from "noble houses". (Game of thrones has a lot to answer for). We are looking for a way of differentiating them from present ruling families but we also need a way of differentiating them from other families. Domdeparis (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Disagree @The Gnome: After having particpated and read the different comments in this discussion I am in agreement with @DrKay: and @Acjelen: , we are talking about renaming 3 pages and from what I can see that there is consensus for adding "former" to the pages titled "royal family of...". I don't think there is need to create a "formal rule" as per WP:CREEP. This conversation could be used as a proof of WP:CONSENSUS when moving these pages or renaming a page should the monarchy in that particular country be abolished. Domdeparis (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. Just bear in mind that the claims by DrKay about the history of the royal throne in Greece (the subject of one of the three articles that are allegedly affected) are incomplete and misleading (unintentionally most probably), as I demonstrated in my response to them. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't really have an opinion on that to be honest it is more the fact that we are dealing with 3 pages here and potentially very very few in the future. cheers Domdeparis (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Soft Agree I approve of the suggestion from User:Domdeparis above. I agree that convention is fine, but that policies, explicit guidelines, and even rules are a useful and pragmatic way to avoid edit wars and help editors. My only concern is that the number of these formerly-ruling extant royal families is small. Are there enough such families to warrant special guidelines or are the current standing policies as to style and edit wars sufficient? -Acjelen (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
In practically every European nation that used to have a monarchical regime there remains at least one family of hereditary nobility who have been royals. (E.g. France, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Austria, Hungary, Portugal, Germany, Albania. Poland, naturally, is always a special case.[1]) These families either still have explicit claims on the throne or have never formally abandoned them. The situation, despite being mostly in the background of European politics, can be or has been the cause of numerous, strong disagreements here in Wikipedia; we gravitated towards the practice I'm suggesting we adopt as a clear rule. -The Gnome (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - We'd be better off splitting hairs. Have two sets of articles for every monarchy & defunct monarchy. Have X royal family article & a House of X article, for each country. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Disagree no matter how applaudable the basic premise might be, COMMONNAME trumps consistency. The obvious title about the (ex) Greek royal family is "Greek royal family" or some-such. The 'house name' of relatively obscure, defunct royals is much less likely to be familiar than the "nation-royal family" formula. Even if adopted, the policy should be at the discretion of editors to establish 'commonname'. The problem with the Greek royal family article IMO is that the lead does not make it sufficiently clear that they no longer reign, (and have renounced claims to the throne I believe) which is the most important fact to the average reader, not how 'blue' their blood remains. Pincrete (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. Let me just say that, actually, WP:COMMONNAME is what I was trying to implement in the article titled "Greek royal family". The rule states, WP "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)." (Emphasis added.)
I chose the way the family of Constantine, former King of Greece is denoted most commonly in media considered to be reliable sources. The notations "Greek royal family" or "royal family of Greece" are used faithfully only by monarchists,[2] the royals themselves, social media (with exceptions[3]), and gossip media.[4] It seems that the most common notation is to precede mentions of the term "royal family" by the adjective "former" or the preposition "ex".[5][6][7][8] Ergo, the appropriate title, strictly according to the above-mentioned rule, would be something like "Former royal family of Greece." I opted for the less unwieldy choice of the "name of the family" - which is, moreover, as it appears, how almost universally the former royal family are denoted in the local media, i.e. the House of Glücksburg.
Users looking for every non-extant "royal family," as such, could simply be redirected to the article. -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
User:Pincrete and User:The Gnome I actually think that "Former Royal Family of Greece" is a much better suggestion than House of. If we can try and imagine the unimaginable that the UK becomes a republic then the "British Royal Family" page could not be called "House of Windsor" because this already exists but it could very legitimately be called "Former British Royal Family". Pincrete, the common name does not trump naming conventions nor does it mean that an inaccurate or non neutral name should be used simply because it is common, as per WP:TITLE. The most well known exemple is Diana, Princess of Wales which turns up 459k GHits but Princess Diana 12.3M Ghits, Lady Diana 1.5M, and Lady Di 484k Ghits. All 3 are more common than the page's title. The royal family of Greece or Greek Royal Family is an inaccurate name because the monarchy was abolished in Greece in 1974. Leaving the article as it is suggests that Greece is still monarchy. Domdeparis (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Pincrete, The Gnome, Domdeparis: The word "deposed" would befit the royal dignity more so than "former". - Conservatrix (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Conservatrix I disagree because a person is deposed from office (which is far from being a diginified process) but not a family. In the case of Greece I do not believe the Monarch was deposed but the monarchy was abolished. Many monarchs have been deposed in favour of another so not involving the abolition of the monarchy. Farouk of Egypt was overthrown and deposed in favour of his son and this mostly because of his corruption. The OED gives this definition "remove from office suddenly and forcefully" not all monarchies have ended as such. Domdeparis (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Domdeparis: Now, now, need I drag out the well-worn argument of divine right? "Former" implies finality (granting the public rule over their Sovereign), while "deposed" more appropriately implies that the subjects are misbehaving. - Conservatrix (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
'Former' I agree is simple, clear and covers a range of cases. I didn't know we were expected to endorse (rather than simply report,) 'Dei gratia'! Capital punishment has not been abolished for treason in the UK, so we'd better watch what we say, the Tower awaits!. Pincrete (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pincrete: The Bastille has unfortunately been demolished, resulting in the French running wild with all sort of notions of egalitarianism. - Conservatrix (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pincrete, Conservatrix, Domdeparis, GoodDay: The term "former" is the accurate term. If King Tutnum is thrown out of the throne and his family is forced away from royal inheritance rights, but the monarchy is retained, then clealy poor Tutnum and his poor family have been deposed; the family is now a "deposed royal family"; the term "former royal family" indicates the whole royal regime has been abolished. And the term is not only more accurate, but it's by far the most commonly used, as I showed. -The Gnome (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
If you want, rename the X royal family articles to X former royal family for those who are no longer reigning. Note - some monarchy turn republic countries, have had more then one royal family in their history. See the Kingdom of Serbia, for example. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Is this your vote of agreement? - Conservatrix (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm ok with the naming either way. Romanian, Greek, Serbian, Albanian familys royal (for historical reason) or former royal (for current status) is acceptable to me. We should (again) create separate articles on the royal/former royal houses. Note that many countries when monarchies, had more then one House rule over them. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree in full because of the proposal's (here bolded & italicized) wording " ... should have in their title the appropriate surname of the family only, denoted as "house of" or similar." which, I believe, actually covers most or all of the comments and suggestions made here so far. It is as important as any other effort to try to be taken somewhat seriously as an encyclopedia, not as a tabloid, that Wikipedia distinguish between families currently enthroned by their peoples and governments and those which are not. A more specific wording in the final change made to guideline would naturally be helpful, such as "... should have in their title the appropriate surname of the family only, denoted as "house of", or similar clarifications such as Greek royal family of 1863-1973." I applaud the initiative. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Disagree I think you are muddling two types of pages together. The articles such as British royal family or Greek royal family are actually about the current living members of a family and the House of Windsor or House of Glücksburg is about the wider historical dynasty. What you are pointing out is that many former royal houses have a dynastic page but WP just doesn't have a separate article about the living members yet. Some more notable ones have been created including Greece and Roumania but not all. For the other's the living members information is currently just tacked onto the bottom of a dynastic page or a "line of succession..." page if there are multiple claimants such as Russia. What your proposal would do, if adopted is restrict WP editors from creating the additional page type which focuses only on the current living members. If your looking for conformity you should be looking to create all the missing "...royal family" pages. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 12:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
There are no "current living members" of a Greek royal family, because, by law, a Greek royal family does not exist today. There are "current living members" of a former royal family of Greece. I think some sort of equitable solution to that kind of problem is what we're after here? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes there are current living members of the Greek royal family. You are now looking the murky legal world of de jure vs de facto (by right vs by fact). The royal family were the royal family and then they were ousted from power, the current republic does not get its authority from the previous Royalist Constitution. Therefore legally speaking it was created though treasonous means... the argument used by many former rulers and supporters is that by right they are still the legitimate authority and the new republics are illegitimate. Therefore the current republican government can enact whatever laws they like for they are illegitimate as well. This is why may deposed monarchies still use their titles and positions, even though in fact they have no position in their home counties republican government... They will always be a royal family by right of their former position and nothing can change that. Its the same with non-royal situations, just because Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 doesn't stop Ukraine and its supporters claiming the territory is still legally Ukrainian. Same with the legal status of Taiwan, South Ossetia, Palestine etc. You can say they are former rulers, a former throne etc. but you can't say a "former royal family" because they will always be a royal family unless you are supporting the narrow de facto legal position of the republican government and ignoring wider situation and de jure legal position. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 18:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I think we should live in the real world and that Wikipedia should reflect that when it comes to royalty. There is a country - and only one - called Greece (just one example of many). It has a government recognized internationally as legal, enabling it e.g. to be a member of the United Nations. That country has had, but today has no, royal family. Real world. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the real world, what I've explained to you is the real world. The world in which we live in is not as black and white as you seam to think. Otherwise Palestinians would accept Israel, the world would have accepted Somaliland, Argentina would accept British sovereignty of the Falklands and Spain would have accepted the referendum in Catalonia. Just because the territory of Greece is currently run as republic and the republican government does not recognise the Greek royal family in it's constitution does not mean they are is no longer royal. They will always be the Greek royal family, it's just that they have been dethroned and exiled. Nothing can change that fact. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 20:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@User:ThinkingTwice A regime change does not necessarily obtains its legitimacy from the previous regime. The bolsheviks rose to power in the Russian Empire through the October Revolution (or coup d'état, if you prefer) and created the Soviet Union. The way the bolsheviks took over makes them neither "illegal" nor did the regime change left the Tsar's family (or what was left of it) unaffected as far as their status was concerned: When there is no longer any throne to contest, there is no royal family, by definition. Every country in the world, sooner or later, recognized the bolshevik regime as the true and representative government of the USSR, the former Russian Empire - and that kinda seals the deal as far as "legitimacy" is concerned in the real world!..
Of course, there are many other rebuttals against the claim about the eternality of former royal families. For example, there have been many families that ruled over a country. If, according to your logic, each such family, irrespective of her status rearding the throne, is forever entitled to the title "royal family", then that country is blessed with many royal families - and what is poor Wikipedia supposed to do then? :-) The Stuarts of Scotland may yet come back!..
But this is a side discussion, meant simply to address the noise that typically arises when we touch upon this issue. We are here to decide on the basis of Wikipedia rules; not personal ideology. The Wikipedia rule overriding rule is the one about naming articles, i.e. WP:COMMONNAME. I already provided proof that practically every reliable source (i.e. excl. royalists, the royals themselves, gossip rags, etc) denotes these fellows as the former royal family, when they do not simply give the family name. Ergo, the prevalent Wikipedia practice. -The Gnome (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@ThinkingTwice: I'm afraid I strongly disagree with you about the fact that the royal family of Greece is still the royal family. The kingdom of Greece was created by a decision made by the London Conference of 1832 without consulting the Greek people to try and install stability after independence from the Ottoman Empire. Why would this regime change be more legitimate than the regime change from a monarchy to a republic? There is no question of divine right here, the first king of Greece was chosen by Great Britain, France and Russia froma a list of potential candidates. It was a purely political decision as was the abolition of the monarchy. Domdeparis (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Domdeparis: Were the Kings of the Hellenes anointed in the name of Christ? Their ascendance by fortune and anointment without legitimate preexistence of a Christ-anointed monarch is in theory enough to fulfill divine right.
Napoleon Bonaparte was not a monarch but instead a despot in regalia, because: 1. Pope Pius VII performed the coronation against his will, 2. The Capetian dynasts maintain the mandate of Heaven, 3. The Pope and King were both aware that paper theatre is negligible against God's will (deposition/abdication).
- Conservatrix (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I personally could not care less who annonited in who's name, divine right does not exist it is a throwback to another time. If it were the case then there would still be a Catholic monarch on the throne of Great Britain and when a monarch is a bad person then he would be struck down by God and another put in his place. What about muslim monarchs or any other religion? Are they less legitimate? A monarch becomes a monarch because he is more powerful, clever, ruthless, good, or cruel than another person and it has nothing to do with God or Allah or Buddah or the Great Pumpkin. Were the Great Powers doing the work of God whrn they put Otto on the Greek throne that they had just created? Nope they were doing what they thought was best for them. If a country's laws no longer recognise a monarchy then there is no royal family of that country. The family exists and is considered as royal by many but do not belong, according to the laws, to the country they were monarch of so they cannot be the Royal Family of that country. I really think we should avoid a religious debate becasue you are restricting it to catholic monarchs. Domdeparis (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot align with any one ideology, so we must find common ground between secular and theological interpretations of monarchy. Hence why the pages are best left to their complicated nature. - Conservatrix (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Conservatrix: At some point we need to draw a line and discontinue our amusing little discussion about the history of European royalty. Enough is enough. Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing ideas, nor is it a means to promote ideology. We have specific rules under which we operate and those rules do not care at all whether or not Napoleon Bonaparte was a true blue monarch or a "despot in regalia" or whatever. We are not here to impose our views nor to prevent imaginary "insults" to political institutions. Anything we say henceforth that is irrelevant to Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, shall be placed under cover so as not to crowd/impede the conversation. Let's all try to concentrate on the RfC, please, fellow editors. Come on. -The Gnome (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree if they don't rule their not a royal family just a family who used to be royal.עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Disagree because 1. formerly ruling families are often known predominantly by the realm over which they have ruled (House of Liechtenstein, House of Mecklenburg, House of Anhalt, House of Reuss. 2. Other dynasties have been retroactively assigned surnames (by historians, not Wikipedians) which they rarely used as such during their family's reign (Glucksburg, Guelph, Plantagenet, Wettin, Wittelsbach, Zahringen), in which case Wikipedia would not be reflecting history but deliberately steering it by demoting dynasties known for ruling a particular country to a usage shared with many noble families who never ruled anywhere. That is not a neutral action, is not Wikipedia's role, and to the extent we have drifted into an inappropriate practice, here is our opportunity to self-correct and stop (it is, perhaps, justified in the case of Greece, because the post-royal junta and republic have carried on a media campaign to refer to their former dynasty as "Glucksburg" for enough decades that it has arguably become a common usage, although neither legally nor historically did members of that dynasty have or use a surname until exiled. But Wikipedia's justification in that unique case would be that we are following rather than establishing or promoting a new norm in nomenclature). 3. Indeed, the historical norm, as reflected in the Almanach de Gotha (known since the 1700s as "the diplomat's Bible"), has been to continue to accord deposed dynasties their traditional titles and territorial designations ever since 1810 when Napoleon demanded that the publication "live in the real world" and stop treating families he had displaced with his relatives as still "royal": but the Gotha editors, noting the unpredictability of history and of dynasties (i.e. no Bonaparte has occupied a throne since 1870, whereas the present king of Spain is, as before 1810, a Bourbon - not a Bonaparte), declined to change their practice, which became and remains the prevalent international usage, local legalities notwithstanding. Greece regularly exiled its kings, with each ouster being presumed to be final -- until a king was re-enthroned, surprise! Spain, Cambodia, constituent monarchies like Uganda's Buganda and South Africa's Zulu-Natal re-instated their abolished monarchies in the 20th century and, only 18 years into the 21st, it is presumptuous for Wikipedia, on its editors' own authority, to declare that trend is irreversibly over. 4. "Royal" is problematic because it has both a generic meaning ("any family that has ruled by hereditary right") and a specific meaning ("a family that has ruled a type of monarchy, called a kingdom"): nothing Wikipedia does will ever prevent mass reverts of anything we label as the "Royal Family of Liechtenstein" because those who know better will repeatedly correct it to "Princely Family..." Only a house whose head is a king or queen should be designated specifically as a "Royal Family", and we should help readers make the distinction, not further muddy the waters. 5. If a distinction between "currently reigning" and "ex-ruling" is viewed as important, I suggest that we consider "house" (any notable family, e.g. Rothschild) vs. "dynasty" (a ruling family, in historical if not always journalistic usage). 6. This discussion should take place at NCROY, where those most knowledgeable about the issue and the articles likely to be affected, are apt to pay attention. FactStraight (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Excuse me but you seem to agree, rather than disagree, with the RfC proposal. You write,
" 'Royal' [family] is problematic because it has both a generic meaning ('any family that has ruled by hereditary right') and a specific meaning ('a family that has ruled a type of monarchy, called a kingdom') ... Only a house whose head is a king or queen should be designated specifically as a 'Royal Family', and we should help readers make the distinction, not further muddy the waters. If a distinction between 'currently reigning' and 'ex-ruling' is viewed as important, I suggest that we consider "house" (any notable family, e.g. the Rothschilds) vs. 'dynasty' (a ruling family, in historical if not always journalistic usage)."
I agree completely! -The Gnome (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if my point was unclear. I stand corrected: I should have said "Only a house whose head is or has been a king or queen should be designated specifically as a 'Royal Family'..." It seems ahistorical and arbitrary to refer to the "House of Norway", which is a junior branch of Denmark's House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg that mounted the Norwegian throne only in 1905, while avoiding the usual terms "House of Habsburg" and "House of Romanov" for dynasties which ruled as such for many generations and hundreds of years, and which have current descendants who plausibly claim to represent the rights and/or legacy of those families. FactStraight (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for making your position clearer, FactStraight. Of course, there remains the issue of your own suggestion, i.e. "If a distinction between 'currently reigning' and 'ex-ruling' is viewed as important, I suggest that we consider "house" (any notable family, e.g. the Rothschilds) vs. 'dynasty' (a ruling family, in historical if not always journalistic usage)." Again, I must say I fully agree with this - since it is the very basis of the RfC proposal! How is it possible to disagree with a proposal and, at the same time, suggest something exactly like it?
Note, please, also, that in any case we're not here to adjudicate the validity and the legitimacy (or even just the historical significance) of claims to the throne of "dynasties, which ruled as [monarchs] for many generations and hundreds of years, and which have current descendants who plausibly claim to represent the rights and/or legacy of those families." We are meant to keep such personal judgments and/or beliefs out. The RfC is about following and extending Wikipedia's rules; specifically, in this case, the rule about naming articles. -The Gnome (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I sought to raise 6 points about this matter which, on balance, led me to dissent from this proposal. You have responded to one of those points, so if that leads you to conclude that my dissent is inexplicable, might I encourage you to consider the tenor of the other five? I concur with you that Wikipedia editors ought not to "adjudicate the validity" of "dynasties...which have current descendants...", but to follow prevalent usage in referring to them. I argue that observably includes still referring to, e.g., the "House of Hohenzollern" as the "German royal family", the "House of Savoy" as the "Italian royal family" and the House of Petrović-Njegoš as the "Montenegrin royal family", particularly in reputable books which document facts about those families, so deprecating that format would be a novel and non-neutral act from which Wikipedia should refrain. FactStraight (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have never seen "the German royal family" mentioned anywhere reliable, "particularly in reputable books which document facts about those families", probably because there have been so many German royal families. The Hohenzollern's are normally not even called the German imperial family. Burke's Peerage has always titled articles about them "The Royal House of Prussia" (larger font) and "House of Hohenzollern" (subtitle). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that exception. But please note that Burke's also titles articles about, e.g. the House of Orléans as "The Royal House of France" and the House of Braganza as "The Royal House of Portugal". The point is that referring to deposed dynasties as "royal family" is a typical, current usage that Wikipedia ought not to treat as uncommon or as confined to unreliable sources. FactStraight (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
No problem, thanx. I do not object at all to those titles. They are accurate as a matter of history. What I don't want to see at all, or at least when it can be legitimately avoided, is Wikipedia supporting claims that people who belong to dethroned/abdicated royal families are to be listed as royalty under misleading titles such at "French royal family" or "Italian royal family". "French royal families" (e.g. for an article covering all of those families & their claimant descendants) would be fine, as would "Royal families of France". That's clear, respects any and all claimants, elevates no one to anything not factual, i.e. would be excellent. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I see your point. I can accept refraining from use of the word "family", but not omission of "royal" (or "imperial", "grandducal", etc. as the case may be). Unfortunately, this proposal's current wording requires that omission. A compromise I would support would be avoiding "royal (imperial) family" for a dynasty that no longer reigns, provided that family may still be referred to/described as "royal (imperial) house" or "royal (imperial) dynasty", thereby 1. distinguishing deposed families from those which still reign, while 2. also differentiating them from mere aristocratic families that never ruled, the common distinction found in reputable sources. FactStraight (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Splitting hairs. If there is such malcontent over this matter that it need be addressed, then FactStraight's amended proposal is fine, but the distinction between "royal family" and "royal house" is redundant and hardly warrants change. - Conservatrix (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Excellent suggestions by FactStraight and SergeWoodzing. It is an established fact that we have cases of countries where the throne has been occupied by different families historically and where there is no longer a monarchy but the claim to the throne still exists (or has not been resigned) and is the subject of political controversy. Such cases go far beyond the small number of articles allegedly affected directly. Why, for example, is the family of Stuarts not designated as a "royal family"? After all, they have ruled Britain in the past. And what about France, where a lot of media (that a combination of gossip, light news, family entertainment, etc) still use the term "royal family" when referring to one of the many families contesting the non-existing throne of the country?
The obvious choice is to consolidate the current practice and, per the above discussion, distinguish deposed families from those which still reign, while also "differentiating them from mere aristocratic families that never ruled, with the common distinction found in reputable sources." I merely submitted that the distinction should be reflected in the removal of the term "royal". The epigones of the Byzantine emperors do not belong to an "imperial family"; nor can any potential descendants of Czar Nicholas II be said to belong to an "imperial family". Either you are a royal in a royal regime, or you are not (the throne and/or the royal regime are no more); a strictly binary choice. And, unsurprisingly, the truly serious and reputable sources reflect this, per WP:COMMONNAME. -The Gnome (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with your first sentence above beginning "The obvious choice is to consolidate...", but dissent from the rest. I thought we were building consensus here toward a compromise that reserves the phrase "royal family" for reigning dynasties? But I specifically objected to withholding use of the word "royal (imperial, etc)" from deposed families, thus allowing such usages as "royal house", precisely because that is what reputable literature on monarchy-related subjects does, as Burke's does in the example cited previously, referring to the long exiled families of Hohenzollern, Orléans and Braganza as "The Royal House of Prussia", "The Royal House of France" and "The Royal House of Portugal". Otherwise, the distinction between formerly ruling families and those of the ordinary and much more numerous aristocracy is not being preserved. FactStraight (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support individual families not being referred to as a 'royal family' after the end of their reign ('House of ...' should be used), but oppose any idea of not having articles titled 'royal family of ...' after the abolition of the respective monarchy, as long as the overview is not focussed only on one particular house. Sb2001 12:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Sb2001: This is an up-or-down vote. Do you generally agree or disagree with the proposal as it exists? - Conservatrix (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
On the proposal as it stands, I will have to support it. Though, I imagine there may be a further RfC on this because it is too broad. Sb2001 17:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral (Summoned by bot) I think that this should be handled on a case-by-case basis, depending upon how they are referred to by reliable sources. Coretheapple (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Even though I submitted the RfC proposal, I must be honest and count your vote as a disagreement. :-) Take care. The Gnome (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Disagree. The weight in reliable sources should determine the usage of the term royal. Whether that refers to a historical status quo or to the current scenario, it doesn't matter. WP isn't a kingmaker, we don't decide who is or has been in power, the sources do so by usage of the term 'royal' Cesdeva (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

References[edit]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Relevant discussion[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Notability of British knights. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Wales[edit]

It's weird that all of these are red links; I have no idea where these should point: Welsh nobility, Welsh nobles, Welsh royalty, Welsh royal family, Welsh royal families, Welsh noble families, Welsh dynasties, Nobility of Wales, Royalty of Wales, etc., etc.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:

"Welsh royal family" suggests at current, which can reference either the ruling House of Windsor or the Welsh pretender Llywelyn Jones, Coron Tywysog Cymru, see here.
- Conservatrix (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave it to the regulars here to decide where to point redirects like this, or if some kind of disambiguation or set-index page needs to be created. It's just really hard to find this stuff with obvious names. We do have a Category:Welsh royalty, though Category:Welsh nobility is missing despite corresponding categories existing for other nations.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
That's because nobility, in the standard Western European manner, is not native to Wales. Short of a cat for those British nobles who happen to Welsh, like David Lloyd George, there's not much we can do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
But it's been imposed on Wales since ca. the 13th c., and Wales had plenty of regional kings and such before then, and the Tudors were Welsh, and ....  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
List of rulers of Wales would do for many of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Julia Gelardi's From Splendor to Revolution[edit]

Hi! I'm Konstantinos from the Wikipedia in French. I usually work on Greek Royal family and I am presently working on Princess Nicholas (born Grand Duchess Elena Vladimirovna of Russia). Now, I saw on google books that Julia Gelardi's book From Splendor to Revolution describes Princess Nicholas relation with Kate Fox, her governess's children. Unfortunately, google books does not give the page's numbers related to the events and I can't use Gelardi's book. That's why I write to you. Does somebody here have the book at home? Or can someone consult it in a library? If it is the case, it would be very nice to indicate me the pages... Thank you very much for your help and sorry for my poor English ! Regards Konstantinos (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Please come and help...[edit]

Greetings! I have recently relisted for the third time a requested move debate at Talk:List of Sinhalese monarchs#Requested move 1 January 2018, regarding a page related to this WikiProject. Your opinion and rationale are needed so a consensus can be achieved. Thank you and Happy Publishing!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Monarchist Userboxes[edit]

I noticed a lack of userboxes for monarchists and decided to champion the cause. These are my first creations. Enjoy! - Conservatrix (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Great Britain & Ireland
Affiliation Code Userbox
Jacobitism
{{User:Conservatrix/Userboxes/Jacobite}}
Jacobite Standard (1745).svg This user is a Jacobite. Emblem of the Papacy SE.svg
Hanover/Saxe-Coburg/Windsor
{{User:Conservatrix/Userboxes/Hanoverian}}
Royal Standard of the United Kingdom (1714–1801).svg This user is a Hanoverian loyalist.
France
Affiliation Code Userbox
Legitimists
{{User:Conservatrix/Userboxes/Legitimist}}
Flag of Royalist France.svg This user is a royalist and supports the Legitimist claimant to the throne of France. Vive le Roi!
Unionists
{{User:Conservatrix/Userboxes/Unionist}}
Pavillon royal de la France.png This user is a royalist and supports the Orléanist claimant to the throne of France. Vive le Roi!
Orléanists
{{User:Conservatrix/Userboxes/Orleanist}}
Flag of the Constitutional Kingdom of France (proposed).svg This user is a constitutionalist and supports the Orléanist claimant to the throne of France. Vive la Charte!
Bonapartists
{{User:Conservatrix/Userboxes/Bonapartist}}
Imperial Standard of Napoléon I.svg This user is a nationalist and supports the Bonapartist claimant to the throne of France. Vive l'empereur!
Huguenots
{{User:Conservatrix/Userboxes/Huguenot}}
Croix huguenote.svg This user is a Huguenot.
Germany
Affiliation Code Userbox
German Empire
{{User:Conservatrix/Userboxes/GER}}
War Ensign of Germany (1892-1903).svg
This user believes it wise to restore the German Empire.
Otto Von Bismarck.jpg
Holy Roman Empire
{{User:Conservatrix/Userboxes/HRE}}
Banner of the Holy Roman Emperor with haloes (1400-1806).svg This user believes it wise to restore the Holy Roman Empire.
Iberian Peninsula
Affiliation Code Userbox
Portuguese Monarchism
{{User:Conservatrix/Userboxes/Monarquista}}
Brasão de armas do reino de Portugal.svg This user cannot imagine Portugal without her King. Viva o Rei!
Carlism
{{User:Conservatrix/Userboxes/Carlist}}
Flag colors of Requetes -Template.svg
This user is a Carlist.
Royal Coat of Arms used by the supporters of the Claimants to the Spanish Throne (adopted c.1942) Golden Fleece Variant.svg
Spanish Constitutional Monarchy
{{User:Conservatrix/Userboxes/Constitucionalista}}
Spanish Presidential Flag.svg This user believes a constitution affords stability and prosperity to the Kingdom of Spain. ¡Viva el Rey!
Italian Peninsula
Affiliation Code Userbox
Venetism
{{User:Conservatrix/Userboxes/Venetist}}
Flag of the Republic of Venice.svg This user supports restoration of the Venetian Republic.

Requests, recommendations, and criticism are welcome.
- Conservatrix (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"Henri" versus "Henry" for historical French figures[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Henry III of France#Why the anglicized "Henry"?
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC on the Kingdom of France page![edit]

An RfC has been opened on the Kingdom of France talk page. See here. - Conservatrix (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

AfD on List of living British princes and princesses[edit]

Further opinions are sought at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living British princes and princesses. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Article naming for Albanian and Montenegrin royals.[edit]

Good morning. I have come across some strange article naming for some Albanian and Montenegrin royals, namely:

It seems to me that royals who were Crown Princes at the end of the monarchy maintain the title on the article name, while royals who claim the title after the end of the monarchy should not have it. At least, that's the praxis here on Wikipedia, isn't it?

If you agree with me, I would suggest these moves:

Thank you for your attention. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: I would also like to ask for your opinion on Peter, Hereditary Prince of Yugoslavia, if it should be moved to Prince Peter of Yugoslavia, as he was also born after the end of the monarchy (son of Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia).
Please use the process for contested moves as described at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. DrKay (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
And do notify us if you do use it. There is a case, on neutrality grounds, for using the simple surnames Njegosh, Zogu, Karađorđević or even Karageorgevitch - the last to follow English, instead of the lingering quarrel between Croatian and Latinized Serbian. In this we follow the example of Otto von Habsburg. Are titles granted by non-reigning monarchs common usage? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Leka I, Crown Prince of Albania#Requested move 31 March 2018. DrKay (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Titles & Grammar[edit]

Can someone please explain the grammatical standards on en-wiki? I was taught to always capitalize titles when they identify a specific person or are associated with a place (King of Spain, Dukes of Artois). Singular and unspecified, capitalized ( The Duke (of Burgundy) fled to Dijon, The king (of Prussia) seethed with anger). Plural and unspecified, not capitalized ( The kings met at Albany, The kings of France lie buried at St. Denis). Attached title, capitalized ( Charles, Duke of Nemours, Louis, count of Provence) - Conservatrix (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't you mean The Kings of France lie buried at St. Denis? Bermicourt (talk 19:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Bermicourt: No, the kings were specified and thus should be capitalized. Hence and unspecified being italicized. - Conservatrix (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

When listing titles, referring to three individuals:  The dukes of Berry, Provence and Artois are brothers, when referring to all who have been dukes:  The Dukes of Berry, Provence and Artois are often members of the Royal Family. Of this rule I am uncertain. These situational rules make the English language so convoluted. - Conservatrix (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Well I don't know whether there is a Wiki convention, but I pretty well follow the above as it's what I was taught. Have you come across an issue? --Bermicourt (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I have seen the following: He was king of France from...; Louis, count of Provence; The kings of France. My time is spent on French articles and I believe the French have adopted the habit of lowering their titles, but if not mistaken I further believe period documents capitalize such titles "La Comtesse d'Ogny". - Conservatrix (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
What the French do is largely irrelevant. It's English practice that we follow and I would say you're following the right protocol. Debrett's seem to concur and they're a pretty authoritative source. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh boy! Look what I found! A relevant policy. – Conservatrix (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica has taken to using "king of England," which is wrong according to my provincial education. I suppose each culture defines its standard. The Bible does not capitalize heaven and earth, the Encyclopedia Britannica does not capitalize titles, and Conservatrix capitalizes everything. – Conservatrix (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Mewulwe edits[edit]

Since the death of the heir to the headship of the House of Wurttemberg user Mewulwe has been removing indicators of royal status from his and his father's articles.(Someone else has been depriving the new heir of the "Hereditary Duke" reference as well).Amid this edit-warring,should this project take a stand?12.144.5.2 (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The German nobility was abolished after World War I... I'm not sure that these people should ever have had any "indicator of royal status." Unless you think Napoleon VII is Emperor of France right now as well. SnowFire (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
We treat titles held in pretense as valid if they have been recognized by reliable secondary sources. – Conservatrix (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Uh... depends on what you mean by "valid". The fact that somebody is "head of a household", sure, or that they would be Emperor or Duke or whatever under the old system, fine. But they should not represented as if they are actually the Duke or the Emperor or the King or whatever, because they plainly aren't; that is the definition of holding a title in pretense. SnowFire (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I've reverted the latest edit at Carl, Duke of Württemberg, and invited the warring editors to thrash it out on the talk page, which is the right way to do it. I have no axe to grind and am personally quite happy to run with what the sources use. If editors here are able to help with that, please join the discussion. Bermicourt (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Correct, SnowFire. It would impede upon WP:NPOV if Wikipedia were to arbitrate the legitimacy of princes and governments. We observe the titles in courtesy. – Conservatrix (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Surely if they "self-identify" as princes, then that's what they really are? (don't worry, only joking!). Bermicourt (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
How dare you evoke the Bonaparte family motto! What trouble came from such a small island, and from a man who once despised the French... – Conservatrix (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Consort infobox headings[edit]

Keivan.f and I are disagreeing on a topic that needs consensus. Regarding consorts of royals, for example, Queen Silvia of Sweden, I argue that in the heading of the infoboxes only the first name(s) of the consort shall be used, whereas Keivan.f wants to use the whole maiden names for genalogical reasons. I find this unneccessary, since the whole maiden name is included further down in the infoboxes anyway. There seems to be no conformity on this, as there are examples of both, i.e. Queen Maxima of the Netherlands and Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. I therefore seek other people's opinion on this. I include the initiating discussion from my talk page below. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why we are edit warring while the issue can be resolved with a simple discussion. First of all, you are right; as titled royals most of the consorts do not use/have a surname, but using their maiden name in the infoboxes has been a practice which I haven't started. Examples include Louise Mountbatten, Mary of Teck, Queen Letizia of Spain, and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. We use their maiden names for genealogical reasons, and personally I don't see a problem in that. Keivan.fTalk 17:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Keivan.f Thanks for starting the discussion, I was about to do the same. I think it might be more suitable at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Let's continue there? --Marbe166 (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
It was really good of you to start the discussion here. I would like to see what the other users think. To be honest, it is annoying to see that two different rules are being followed right now in regards to the articles about royal consorts. The deceased ones are mostly titled with their maiden names, and their infobox headings contain their maiden names as well, while the current ones follow the format "Queen X of [Country]" and the maiden names are omitted from infobox headings. I'm not suggesting that pages about the current consorts need to be moved, as that's another issue which needs to be discussed separately, but I think adding the maiden names to the infobox headings would be useful for genealogical reasons and makes the appearance of the articles more consistent. Keivan.fTalk 20:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I ping SergeWoodzing and Surtsicna who moght not be aware of this discussion but might have an opinion to share. --Marbe166 (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I have recently expressed my opinion - about the names of all living persons - here. As one who dislikes all kinds of inconsistency, which makes WP look like kindergarten, I also agree with Surtsicna (below). Silvia of Sweden would suffice. Or King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. Equality in all forms is nice, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Marbe166. I have to confess that I do not feel very strongly about this. I am much more bothered by the pairings of Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden and Queen Silvia of Sweden, Philippe of Belgium and Queen Mathilde of Belgium, etc. Not only are the titles of consorts inconsistent with those of their predecessors, but they are also inconsistent with the husbands. Judging by the titles alone, it is heavily implied that Mathilde is the monarch and Philippe is... something else. Nobody but Wikipedia veterans understands that the format "Queen [Name] of [Country]" denotes a consort. It is entirely counter-intuitive. But I guess this is an off-topic rant. Surtsicna (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You have, indeed, repeatedly made known your strenuous objections, which I think are well understood. Yet what I think is needed is a willingness to address the concerns others have raised, so that a compromise to improve the situation can be forged. When that happens, I believe progress is likely to follow. FactStraight (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Royals Ancestry[edit]

Keivan.f keeps removing the ancestry section on some royals pages claiming its unsourced but if you go up the ancestry itself their pages also have an ancestry section which are mostly linked to those ancestors pages so since each person is sourced who their parents are i thing the expanded ancestry should stay and since the section is hidden it doesn't take up anymore room see here [1] and here [2] so i would like consensus to keep or delete the ancestry section going back 4 generation on these pages and basically all the other royals pages עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@AmYisroelChai: If you are so eager to keep them, you must provide reliable sources for them. Take a look at the ancestry section on Diana, Princess of Wales where each person's name is properly sourced in the ancestry chart. I would also like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. It means that while articles about Charlotte's parents or children may have ancestry sections, they do not justify adding an unsourced one to the article about Charlotte. So many of them are unsourced anyway, and have to be removed as well. So instead of reverting my edits, try to find reliable sources which support your addition. Keivan.fTalk 20:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
so you found the one royal where all the ancestry has its own source and besides on their own pages they are sourced as the the child of their parents and they are sourced as the child of their parents etc. עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
You can look at it however you like. The main point is that it must be sourced. Listing a bunch of people who have articles on Wikipedia in a row doesn't mean that they are necessarily related. The issue is reliability and credibility which can only be established through reliable sources not merely through creating an ancestry chart based on Wikipedia articles. Keivan.fTalk 20:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Most of these Ancestry sections and in particularly the table doesnt really add anything of value to the article, if the ancestry is important then it should just be mentioned in the article prose. Hiding the table is normally an admission that nobody actually requires to read it. I know we have a lot of people who love this stuff but is it really encylopedic in an article on an individual, they would be better in a stand-alone article about the familes (if relaiable sourcing could be found) if one really needs to know the interconnection within these individuals. MilborneOne (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I think these sections are often irrelevant. Great-great-grandparents are rarely directly relevant to their descendant's achievements. Your point that you can trace the ancestry anyway just highlights how pointless the sections are: the information is elsewhere and there's no reason to repeat it at the biography of an individual. Biographies should be about individuals not that individual's irrelevant and distant ancestry. DrKay (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest that we should recommend not including ancestry sections in articles on individuals. MilborneOne (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
In general I agree with this sentiment. In most cases, it is just gratuitous genealogy coupled with 'other pages have it' justification, and generally a violation of WP:GENEALOGY and WP:PROPORTION. I think there are circumstances where having an Ancestry section with a selective prose description of the relevant relationships may be justified, but in most cases this would not be the case. I think there are some cases, such as a disputed succession with numerous candidates, for which we don't have a stand-alone article), where a chart is helpful, but again only showing the relevant relationships, and I can't think of any circumstance where a cookie-cutter 5-generation chart is needed in any biography. I say this knowing that it flies counter to WikiProject Genealogy, among whose stated goals is the expansion of such charts even to non-royal and non-noble biographies, when I think we should have far fewer (and as others have stated, that those we do have should not be absolved from WP:V compliance). Agricolae (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry sections require sources as much as any other content. That has been confirmed over and over again. I also agree that these sections are more often than not entirely trivial. To establish why Prince Andrew is a prince, we do not need to go back 5 generations; he is a prince because his mother is a queen. When explaining a convoluted succession, Template:Family tree is more useful anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that I challenged the addition of ancestry in Prince George of Cambridge, Princess Charlotte of Cambridge‎ and Prince Louis of Cambridge by User:Pjoona11. They have started a talk page discussion at Talk:Prince George of Cambridge, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Margareta of Romania[edit]

Recently the article Margareta, Crown Princess of Romania has been moved to Margareta of Romania, without benefit of an RM. Has her status changed? is she now titular Queen of Romania? GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

George and the Regency[edit]

Is anyone interested in publishing a new page dedicated to the battle for the Regency? The political conflict is mentioned in brief on the Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz article, but with the many characters involved it really should have its own page. If the 1994 film The Madness of King George can tell this story, surely we can just as well – with citations! – Conservatrix (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Regency Crisis of 1788 redirects to Charles James Fox. – Conservatrix (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)