Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:23, 13 June 2013

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12

• WT:ROY
• WT:ROYAL
• WT:ROYALTY

David I of Scotland & Alexander I of Scotland

We should be avoiding 're-directs' & 'pipe-links' that promote the gaelic version of Malcolm III of Scotland & Malcolm IV of Scotland, as those linked articles are currently in 'english' version. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NOTBROKEN. In other words don't pipe links that aren't piped if they change nothing visually on the page as is the case in these ones you were edit warring over. -DJSasso (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Those linked articles are in 'english', we should use 'pipe-links' that respect this. We should have'em shown as & . This is done for the surrounding Scottish monarch articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that is completely counter to the point of what redirects are for. Personally I don't care how they are listed on the page. I am just pointing out there are guidelines that actually say not to do what you did. -DJSasso (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Baloney, I did nothing wrong. PS: When did you become so interested in Scottish monarch articles? GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I linked you to the guideline above, if you want to keep ignoring guidelines that is your choice. I have little interest in the content of the articles. But I do have interest in editors that are causing disruption just for the sake of disruption. -DJSasso (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Then you go and seek such editors, 'cuz I'm not one of'em. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a complete misinterpretation of the guideline in question. The guideline you are pointing to just says not to change links for the purpose of avoiding redirects. That is not what GoodDay was doing. He was changing links because he thinks the article in question should say "Malcolm III" instead of "Mael Coluim III". The link is incidental. Hmm, no, actually, that's not what GoodDay is doing. GoodDay is specifically violating the rule you point to. Personally, it seems pretty obvious to me that the articles in question should refer to "Malcolm III" and "Malcolm IV" in the text itself, whatever the links pipe to or don't. john k (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, John K. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

See above, I modified my position. I agree that we should not be using the Scottish names, but I'm not sure why you're focusing on the piping, when the real problem is that we are calling them "Mael Coluim" in the article text. john k (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a tad confused. I was attempting to make this kinda edit & at that articles 'content' & 'infobox'. That's the names of the 2 linked-articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ferdinand, Hereditary Prince of Leiningen

Hi, I'm trying to find reliable sources to verify the contents of the article Ferdinand, Hereditary Prince of Leiningen and am coming up blank. Can anyone here help? Thanks J04n(talk page) 22:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You might try the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels. john k (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone willing to help out a new user who's interested in notability in Sicily?

I userfied an article for this new editor a couple weeks ago. The user has made some improvements to it, but I know nothing about the topic and am unable to determine if it's suitable for the mainspace (it does still need some work with citations). If anyone has interest in this topic, please take a look at the article User:Italian-royalty/Nobility in Sicily. Thanks! P. D. Cook 22:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Abolished nobility

Per Austrian nobility#Abolition of nobility in 1919, all title of nobility in Austria were abolished in 1919. Most people who used "von" as part of their name dropped it. We still refer to "Ludwig von Mises" because he presumably re-added the "von" after he left Austria in 1934 and it's how he's commonly known. He had also inherited the title Edler. What's the appropriate way of using the title in the biography? Should we use it as if the title had not been abolished? Or say he was a "former Edler"? It is a not a common part of his name.   Will Beback  talk  01:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Styles" infobox

Could anyone tell me how your project generally deals with translations in a "Royal styles" infobox like the one at Princess_Maria_Amélia_of_Brazil#Titles and honors? Do you list "Senhora" or "Ma'am" or both or neither? - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Three royalty articles up for deletion

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Heir to the Ottoman dynasty, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prince Odysseas-Kimon of Greece and Denmark and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Princess Desirée of Schaumburg-Lippe. - dwc lr (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

A new nominated article Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark. - dwc lr (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prince Aristidis-Stavros of Greece and Denmark - dwc lr (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark - dwc lr (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Consort list articles

A discussion at Talk:List of Irish queens and consorts has prompted me to open a deletion discussion for these types of articles, most of which are the work of User:Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy. Contributions would be welcome. Opera hat (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving Tudor dynasty to House of Tudor

There is a discussion in progress at Talk:Tudor dynasty about moving Tudor dynasty to House of Tudor for those who wish to comment. OCNative (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

A bit of help, perhaps, with Prince Yi Chung

Having trouble getting this article from unsourced to having at least one reliable source. Any assistance greatly appreciated. --joe decker 23:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Non reigning royals title or no title?

A discussion which could have wide ranging repercussions for how non reigning royals are titled is taking place at Talk:Archduke Karl of Austria#Requested move. The relevant naming guidelines for this article are WP:NCROY - dwc lr (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines need revamping. Those who weren't born royal, shouldn't have royal titles in their article name. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And that would create all sorts of problems as one would have to find reliable sources proving what peoples legal names are, that is likely almost impossible. What would you call Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece? For German royals you can assume that their legal names are their titles in their native form, but without proof that is original research which is not allowed. - dwc lr (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

In any case we cannot have a naming guideline that imposes a revolutionary bias. In Misplaced Pages, a republic is a republic, not something that should really be a monarchy. Hans Adler 22:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

A republic is a republic, naming conventions acknowledge this, that is why we don’t have articles called King Leka of the Albanians (Leka, Crown Prince of Albania), or Emperor Karl II of Austria, King Louis XX of France (Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou) and so on. - dwc lr (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Republics don't have Archdukes. Archduchies have Archdukes. Use of fictional titles is an indication of an anachronistic, pre-republican mindset. Hans Adler 22:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The French Republic has dukes and counts and the like, whose titles are all regulated by French law. john k (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Monarchies are all dependent on nations for their existence. If a nation decides not to be a monarchy anymore, from the moment that decision becomes legal in that nation the sitting royal family consists of Ex-King, Ex-Queen, Ex-Prince, Ex-Princess etc. Their descendants, born after that monarchy was abolished, are just regular citizens, with first names and a surname, like everybody else. Anything else is nice as a courtesy but has no bearing on reality. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

How many articles' subjects are notable only for being dynasts or nobles of ex-monarchies? To title such articles by their "plain" names would be like using Samuel Clemens. —Tamfang (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There are about a dozen men called "Archduke Karl of Austria" but for some reason the most recent pretender to that title is at that name despite the clear and unambiguous fact that it is not primary usage. It is more like placing John Adams (drummer) at John Adams because he's the most recent person who's been called that, or Charles Louis of Bourbon-Parma at "Charles II", because he is sometimes called that, even though there are plenty of other men called Charles II with a better claim to primary usage. DrKiernan (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it hard to add at the end (b 1961). - dwc lr (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it hard to move it to "Karl Habsburg-Lothringen"? DrKiernan (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

At any rate Karl Habsburg-Lothringen could refer to his grandfather. - dwc lr (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it hard to add at the end (b 1961)? DrKiernan (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Too late now I guess so yes, RM is well underway. - dwc lr (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The use of the term 'pretender'

In a discussion at the BLP noticeboard I put forward an argument that we should try to avoid the term 'pretender' as being misleading for general audiences. It is a term of art for those who study royalty, but can be seen as a BLP violation for living people, and as simply confusing if applied to lots of long-since dead people. The term 'pretender' is easily replaced by more precise terms to cover different kinds of cases.

Advice at the BLP noticeboard on the particular cases they are worried about will surely be appreciated, as will discussion here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I kind of agree. I mean we apply claims to these people who probably just wanted to live out their life in peace without any care of their descents from royalty.--71.80.200.5 (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"Pretender" is a descriptive term and is not a term with any negative connotation, so I don't see how it could be a BLP violation. Which is not to say that we should refer to people as pretenders who are not actually pretenders. john k (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Libro d'Oro vs. Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana

There is a bizarre battle going on along the following lines:

Contebragheonte (talk · contribs)/A curious reader (talk · contribs)

The Libro d'Oro is just an inoffical and incomplete list. On the other hand, the Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana provides a list of 48,000 families. Ersormarchese is a fake duke who hates the Annuario because he is not listed there.

Ersormarchese (talk · contribs)/Larastabata (talk · contribs)

The Libro d'Oro inofficially continues the Italian nobility register. The Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana was discontinued in 1905. An unrelated new publication has adopted the name and lists 20,000 families. Contebragheonte is a fake baron who hates the Libro because he is not listed there.

Maybe someone with a lot of patience and with the necessary background knowledge want to sort this out and make the necessary WP:SPI reports against both sides? Hans Adler 12:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there are quite a few socks on the scene. . I'm not sure quite what to make of any of it, but it needs sorting. Giacomo Returned 12:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD pending on Wulfrida, Queen of Wessex?

The Wulfrida article states she was Queen of Wessex, as wife of Æthelred of Wessex. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wulfrida states "No verifiable evidence that Wulfrida existed." I assume users from this project may wish to comment one way or another on this deletion. OCNative (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Family of surname of royal/imperial origins

I'm pleased to inform you that I've created some "stub" on royal/imperial houses which are not present on en.wikipedia, neither in other wikipedia languages, only in it.wikipedia, are the following: Massimo Osmani Emanuele Gioeni Pilo Acuña Antiochia Valencia. Unfortunaly i'm unable to traslate it. Many thanks.Seics (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram

There are some concerns regarding that. Only two people have been significantly involved in the discussion. I believe your opinion will be very helpful to WT:Tambayan Philippines#Sulu Sultanate, Talk:Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram and User talk:RDAndrew. Naming convention seems to be the primary conflict. Moray An Par (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil is now a featured article nominee

Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil is now a featured article nominee. Anyone willing to review the article and share thoughts is welcome. --Lecen (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Or their oppose. Per WP:CANVASS, such notifications should be phrased neutrally, not skewed towards an outcome. DrKiernan (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

First comment amended 22:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Should the names of royals from the Western civilization have their names angliziced?

A Request for Comment has been made in Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies. See here. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, --Lecen (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

See my answer on that talk page. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Naming discussion regarding Eveline Hanska/Ewelina Hańska

Readers of this page may be interested in contributing to the discussion at Talk:Eveline Hańska#Requested move. Cheers. -GTBacchus 00:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI

I guess we forgot to notify you guys here pls see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2011 royal tour of Canada.Moxy (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Svein, King of Norway

There is a dicussion of this man's status as King and his article title at Talk:Svein, King of Norway. If interested please join in the discussion.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Move request regarding Spanish noble, claimant to the throne of France

Readers of this page may be interested in contributing to the discussion at Talk:Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou#Requested move: Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou --> Louis Alphonse de Bourbon. Cheers. -GTBacchus 21:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Titling discussoin for list of Saxon dukes/kings

Readers here may be interested in contributing to the discussion at Talk:List of Dukes of Saxony#move. Cheers. -GTBacchus 23:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Daughters of Albert I, Duke of Saxony

Could anyone shed some light on the question I raised on this article's talk page? It concerns the daughters and who they married. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand articles like this

Line of succession to the French throne (Legitimist) - I don't understand articles like this. I fear that they are absurd original research which then branches out to poison other articles with their absurdity. "He is recognised by those French monarchists who consider Philip V of Spain's renunciation of his rights of succession to the throne of France both on his succession and as part of the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht as null and void." Who? Who are these French monarchists? If they are not serious people, i.e. a handful of crackpots, then the entire article should be deleted.

There are virtually no sources for the article, and one has to wonder if there is any legitimacy at all to the huge list of people allegedly in line to succeed to the French throne.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't argue that the sources are on the page and I've no idea where the list comes from, but the Legitimist claim is a well-established one based on legal principles. Perhaps it's just the wording that needs amending, to describe it not as a group of people but rather as a perspective. Louis Alphonse is definitely the claimant, as seen in Opfell for example. Although, seriously theorising about the line of succession to a centuries-dead monarchy certainly qualifies as "crack-pot" to me. Nightw 06:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree that Louise Alphonse is a claimant. I think that's a heck of a thing for Opfell to say about a guy, that he claims to be the King of France. It strikes me as highly unlikely to be true. What we might say is that in an alternative history in which lots of things happened differently, he would be the person most likely to be the present King of France (despite having a fine head of hair, haha). My concern is that we talk about "legitimists" as if they actually exist, people who actually say that he's the King of France, and are (presumably) campaigning for this to be recognized in the law or whatever. As far as I can tell, that isn't true, and it is bordering on a BLP violation that we so often wrongly accuse people of being claimants to things they are claimings, or pretenders to thinks they aren't pretending to.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

He styles himself duc d'Anjou, asserting his senior descent from Philip V of Spain, and has assigned his twin sons the titles duc de Bourgogne and duc de Berry, recalling the sons of Louis XVI's father. I would have thought this shows he at least considers himself the rightful King of France, regardless of how many "legitimists" agree with him. Opera hat (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. None of these "pretenders" call themselves "kings". Rather, they usually claim that they are the rightful heir to a legacy which at max includes sovereignty, often includes the right to "regulate" dynastic marriages in their family, and always includes, at a minimum, public repudiation of the claims of rival pretenders. The fact is that where there are monarchists, there are factions within monarchist movements that include philosophies, followers, traditions, events and blogs. Exceptions may be to the many German ex-monarchies, except Bavaria, Prussia, and Saxony, who definitely assert claims as heirs to their "tradition". FactStraight (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There are crackpots in all walks of life. If they are notable, then sure we discuss them in our articles. But Line of succession to the French throne (Legitimist) is an example of how we don't do it:

• "The Legitimist heir to the French throne is Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, the senior member of the House of Bourbon." This is the first sentence of the article, and it does not set up the context in a way that makes it recognisable as fringe. Louis Alphonse "is" "he Legitimist heir". This sounds as if it was an official function, moored in the French constitution. One needs to have knowledge about French culture and history that most Europeans have, but the average reader from Asia may not have, to understand from this sentence that the article is about the alternate universe of a tiny number of people who reject today's political system of France.
• There is excessive detail. If some religious sect believes that the world will end on 5 August next year and 100 people who they identify by their names will play an important role in that, then this sect would have to be extremely notable for us to list them all. What's different about Legitimist French monarchists that justifies going into excruciating detail about the details of their beliefs? Hans Adler 11:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I would expect that Misplaced Pages considers it improperly POV to label political factions "fringe", per se. NPOV requires that within an article on a movement, fringe views not receive disproportionate coverage relative to more mainstream ones, but I'm unware of a rule that restricts the length of an article on a fringe movement relative to the length of articles on mainstream ones: on Misplaced Pages, such length has usually been a function of the interest of contributors in devoting time to the topic and, since Misplaced Pages is not paper, lots of long articles on fringe groups & movements are to be found here. It hasn't been that long since many of these same articles were being labelled "stub" with the injunction to expand. In response to other points made above:

• The excerpted first line of the article cited above omits the link to "Legitimist" actually included in the article, which is where usage of that term for a fringe movement is clarified. However, I can see how more clarity would be helpful, although not much more should be included in the lede, IMO.
• As for the use in that sentence of the term "Legitimist" to describe the duc d'Anjou as if that were an objective and prevalent usage rather than as freighted and obscure, again I'm inclined to agree with you. But see here for documentation to the contrary.
• I also agree that listing the entire French legitimist line of succession is excessive -- although I would disagree with Jimbo that the members of that list are not legitimately in that line or that the line is original research: unlike the much-disputed Line of succession to the British throne, eligibility for the French legitimist "crown" is defined in a much simpler way that makes it easier to verify.
• The rationale for listing Legitimist dynasts differs from that for explaining their beliefs. What distinguishes Legitimists from Orleanists from Bonapartists is a mixture of philosophy, politics and history. It is therefore complex. Why today's Carlists support either Carlos, Duke of Parma or his uncle, Prince Sixte-Henri of Bourbon-Parma as rightful king of Spain rather than Juan Carlos de Borbon, the actual king, is downright bewildering (see the Montejurra Incidents), yet I would argue that Carlism is notable and that encyclopedic accuracy justifies disentangling its issues to the extent there are WP contributors willing to objectively document its adherents' key differences. FactStraight (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr Adler's speech was followed by prolonged, sustained applause from the assembled multitude. Or me anyway. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Renaming discussion regarding article Wilhelm II, German Emperor

The proposed renaming being discussed at Talk:Wilhelm II, German Emperor#Requested move: To "Kaiser Wilhelm II" may be of interest to members of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Favonian (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

New AFD's

For a number of members of the Ottoman Imperial Family all listed under one proposal here. And also Greek Royals Princess Theodora of Greece and Denmark, her brother Prince Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark and his wife Princess Tatiana of Greece and Denmark. - dwc lr (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

On a related matter, I just signed this project up for article alerts. New requests (including AFDs) on articles in Category:Royalty work group articles will shortly be added to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Article alerts, which we can transclude here. Nightw 07:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

RSN: Self-published royalty websites

Members of this project may have an interest in this thread: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Self-published royalty websites. The two websites are used as sources for many project articles.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Renaming discussion regarding article Sigurd I of Norway

The proposed renaming being discussed at Talk:Sigurd I of Norway#Requested move may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Favonian (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Emperor Kōnin

Can you guys give a look please? I rewrote it, since I had found some factual errors (anachronism of details mainly), but I feel some details would be better to go to other articles (several people were involved, as usual). Also I'd love to hear your opinion, if Princess Ikami and/or Prince Osabe (his empress later expelled and his first crown prince, see the article please) deserve their own articles, beyond notes on this article? --Aphaia (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Baron of Canalotti

There's an orphan article here which I've just PRODded. Anyone interested in Italian nobility might like to rescue it. At present it doesn't make much sense. PamD 14:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Stewart or Stuart?

Readers of this page may be interested in the move request at Talk:House_of_Stewart#Move_the_article_back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Rules of Succession changed

Lots of news today as David Cameron announced unanimous agreement among the 16 realms to change the rules of succession. Presumably Succession to the British throne needs updating.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Even more, the changes allows now heirs to the throne to marry Roman Catholics!! Does this imply that George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews, who married Sylvana Tomaselli, a Roman Catholic, will be now again in line of succession to the British throne? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see. The law is supposedly not retrospective so the Princess Royal won't move up and so I don't think the Earl of St Andrews would necessarily come back into the line of succession. - dwc lr (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah that's a good point. Thanks for the quick response. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes to the settlement act don't come swifty. The announcement is one thing, but there's not much to it at the moment since no amendments have been proposed. Nightw 13:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The proposed changes should of course be discussed in the appropriate articles as proposed changes. We do not yet know that these reforms will actually pass - an agreement in principle among the prime ministers is quite different from successful passage in all the commonwealth realms. Canada seems like a particularly difficult proposition, since each province has to approve the change separately - I can't imagine Quebec would be too happy about passing a change that still excludes Catholics. john k (talk) 04:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's quite correct. I believe the Statute of Westminster says "dominion" governments have to approve changes in the royal succession, not individual provinces/states. For example, when Edward VIII wanted to mary Mrs. Simpson, Stanley Baldwin consulted only the national-level governments, not every Canadian province - as far as I know. Can anyone quote a reliable source that says otherwise?

Also - this BBC article talks about the application of the new law:

Changes would apply to children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge - even if they were born before a law change. It would mean, if the couple had a first-born daughter, she could become Queen. The change would not, however, apply to previous generations, so Princess Anne would not leapfrog her younger brothers Andrew and Edward to become fourth in line to the throne.

What the actual legislation will say once passed and approved remains to be seen, of course. Textorus (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What the Statute of Westminster says about dominion governments is superseded in Canada by the Constitution Act 1982, which subsumed a lot of previous legislation, including royal succession. Because succession is embedded in our constitution, the provinces must indeed each ratify the changes--though these ones should be relatively no-brainer. → ROUX ₪ 19:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Which means all ten provinces will decide how much of their wish list to tack on this bill, since it is only a minor inconvenience if it fails. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Prince Mircea of Romania

Perhaps that article should be merged into Ferdinand of Romania. -- GoodDay (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do so. Most royal articles have a list of the royal's children, inwhich this would fit nicely; the permastub on this unfortunate infant only exists to avoad a red link in the infobox. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Standardised succession table

Hello, I'm just here to advise of a standardised succession table I've recently created. See {{Succession table monarch}} for more info. Hope it comes in handy. ClaretAsh 13:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, looks great! One issue though: if an unused parameter (like notes) is left blank it doesn't create a cell, which looks slightly odd. Is it possible to correct it so blank cells are created? Nightw 15:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I don't understand what you mean, though. I tested it here and blank cells do seem to be created. I checked the template code and it seems to force a cell creation, dependent, of course, on the name parameter being used. However, I note I didn't set a default value for any of the parameters. If you're referring to the fact that empty cells won't highlight when highlighting a table, then it'd be due to the lack of a default value. In that case, I don't know what default value would be appropriate. Could you tell me in which way it looks slightly odd? I have a coupe ideas of what else it could be but need more detail. Thank you again for the feedback. ClaretAsh 00:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The borders of the blank cell come up thinner than the others, but if you're not seeing it then I think it could just be the browser I'm using. Nightw 12:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I know what's happening now. It's to do with how I created borders for both the table as well as each cell. I ignored it at the time as it didn't seem to make any difference on my browser. I'll fiddle with it, though, and see if I can adjust it. Thanks. ClaretAsh 22:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm clueless and have asked for assistance here. ClaretAsh 06:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Prince Alexander John of Wales

I've requested that this article be merged into Edward VII. Prince Alexander lived for only 1-day. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be agreement on the talk page (for a different merger), but the article's still there. Is there some other problem? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I've done it. DrKiernan (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Princess Alexandra of Greece

I nominated Princess Alexandra of Greece for deletion. There have been several redirect !votes and one weak keep, all of which don't make much sense to me. An admin who appears to see this similarly has just relisted the AfD for a second time. Hans Adler 08:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Portuguese historians needed...

There is debate at Talk:Miguel, Crown Prince of Portugal about the reliability of sources, etc.

If any members of this project have knowledge about Portuguese 14th Century history, your input would be much appreciated. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Surnames

Should royals, such as the supposed Mary and Anne of Denmark, be given such surnames? See Talk:Mary and Anne of Denmark#Surname. DrKiernan (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is now under discussion for a merger at Talk:Anne, Queen of Great Britain#Merger. DrKiernan (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

European monarchs with 'no' regnal number

I've noticed that we've still got articles like Lulach & Denis of Portugal (for examples). Are we still moving such articles to Name, King/Queen of X? If so, should those articles also be moved or are RMs required? GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It is "recommended" to move to "Name, King of Country" (WP:NCNT#Sovereigns). I don't know much about Lulach but the article says he is known as simply that so it could be controversial if that one were to be moved. - dwc lr (talk)

I tried to move Denis of Portugal to Denis, King of Portugal, but it didn't work. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No, unfortunately it is now impossible to do anything on Portuguese royals because of the sour atmosphere. It looks to me like the move is opposed solely out of sour grapes and not out of any other consideration. DrKiernan (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Baudouin of Belgium#Requested move, for another. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

And Talk:Charles I of Austria. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Lines of succession (Former monarchies)

Are these articles notable? Reigen (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Some more than others. I think it depends on what content can be included as one's like Russia, Romania, Brazil and so on are useful. One like Tuscany is perhaps a bit pointless and probably should redirect to the Austria-Hungary one anyway. - dwc lr (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

They have non-trivial POV problems. Many former monarchies have succession disputes (most notably the Crown of France, although the French rule of succession should be well-defined) and, since they are former monarchies, nobody can settle them; the family just divides. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The content is certainly notable, but many of them can probably be merged into articles on the monarchist movements if they exist... Nightw 09:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Template image

FYI, there's an ongoing discussion at Template talk:Monarchism about the image that should be used in the "Part of a series on monarchism" template. Pichpich (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Succession in Hanover

Is the Hanoverian law of succession Salic or semi-Salic? Reigen (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Salic, if the distinction is meaningful. When the House of Brunswick became extinct, the succession fell to the Hanoverians, not to the descendants in the female line. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The same thing would have happened if the succession is semi-Salic; in semi-Salic succession, the descendants in the female line could only succeed once the entire male line had been exhausted. Reigen (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That is what I meant by suggesting the distinction was effectively meaningless. The question then must be what would happen if the entire male line of Welf IV were to die out; and the only possible answer is nobody knows. Even if such a thing had happened while there was still a throne in Hanover, it would have been more a question of international politics than of law. Now there is no competent authority to judge such matters, it is undecidable.

I see. I thought they had some formal or informal law which would definitely state whether the law of succession is either Salic or semi-Salic. Reigen (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Even the accession of Maria Theresa was not "semi-Salic" in this sense. That's a convenient lawyer's classification but not history. The male line of Maximillian amy have died out with her father, but not the House of Habsburg. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Emperor Charles VI was the last male of the House of Habsburg. Even if the Habsburgs would wish to abide by the Salic law, they cannot, since the entire male line has become extinct; hence, the Pragmatic Sanction. Reigen (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sourceless alert: Eraric

In my experience bogus data sometimes emerge and perpetuate on Misplaced Pages. My shallow googling for the spurious ostrogothic king Eraric indicates no source except the infinite number of wikipedia copies. Did he exist, or did a false meme slink into wikipedia? If you know anything please answer at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Sourceless_alert:_Eraric Rursus dixit. (bork!) 16:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Marquis de Lafayette

There doesn't seem to be an article on the title the Marquis de Lafayette. We have the article Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette, which states that his father also held the title "Marquis de Lafayette". The article La Fayette family seems to indicate that the family was established by Gilbert du Motier (I suppose this would be as usage as a surname)... so there's no family lineage article. Does anyone have information necessary to build such an article on the marquisate? 70.24.251.71 (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette → Marquis de Lafayette (discuss) -- 65.92.180.188 (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

British line of succession

There's many related articles which need updating, due to the birth of Isla Philips. Beginning with David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley article. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion notification

Nomination for deletion of Template:House of Stewart (Scotland)

Template:House of Stewart (Scotland) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DrKiernan (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Abul-Hasan ibn Mirza Ghiyas Beg

Came across the Mughal Abul-Hasan ibn Mirza Ghiyas Beg, newly renamed by User:Yazid97. My gut feel is that we can probably come up with a more concise name, but it's not really my field so can anyone help? There's a few more members of the family as red links at Asaf Khan.FlagSteward (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of Norwegian monarchs#Images

Please join this discussion about images use on List of Norwegian monarchs and the articles of the Norwegian kings.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The Tory Island Royal family

This article may need some attention. Hack (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You can say that again. Delete/merge into Tory Island? —Tamfang (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge, I think. There is some reliable source coverage of the "king" but not nearly enough to sustain an article in its own right. Hack (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I had a bit of a go at fixing it but gave up. The article is now at Kings of Tory and has been started anew. Hack (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional comments required

Greeting everyone. There is currently a heated debate taking place at Talk:Elizabeth II#Third opinion in regards to the way the term 'Royal Family' should be capitalised. It has been established that the majority of the articles relating to the British Monarchy all tend to style the word in capitals when the context is specifically about the family of the Queen; and the same term would be in lower case if the words were referring to any royal family in general. Many wiki-guidelines have been referred and they haven't been very helpful, with most contradicting each other. Official sources also stated the words should be capitalised, while other sources into "proper noun styles" state the words should not be capitalised. Would it please be possible for members of this project to head over to the talk page and assist in settling this dispute. I have attempted to hold a WP:3O and provided evidence, but one user seems to be failing to "get it". Thanks, Wesley Mouse 15:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to clear up my meaning on this invite too, as I have received an allegation of posting a bias, canvassing and attacking invite. The wording of the above invite is meant to be outlining the entire debate at Talk:Elizabeth II covering what has been said so far in brief summary. Also when I said "one user seems to fail to get it", I meant one as in any one of the users may be failing to see the point others are making, so any assistance in resolving this would be highly appreciated. Thank you, Wesley Mouse 18:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"Shunzhi Emperor of China" nominated for Good featured article

I've just nominated Shunzhi Emperor of China for Good article. Reviewers are welcome to visit the the Shunzhi Emperor's talk page to open a review page! And could someone with more authority than I add Shunzhi Emperor to the list of good article nominees on this project page? Thank you! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 05:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have just nominated Shunzhi Emperor for featured status. The review page is here. Please come and participate! I would particularly like to know if the text makes sense to readers who don't specialize in Chinese history. Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Royalty

Category:Royalty contains a large number of sub-categories and articles which, strictly speaking, are not royalty, because they concern other ranks of the peerage, such as barons. I've removed a few, such as Alexander Fermor-Hesketh, 3rd Baron Hesketh and Alexander Henderson, 1st Baron Faringdon. Some editors (myself included) left a note with the person who did this mass categorisation (see User talk:M'encarta), but despite the last comment there (20:21, 9 April 2012), I suspect that it has been ignored. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've thinned out the top category. DrKiernan (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Alexandre, Grand Prince of Gutleben for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alexandre, Grand Prince of Gutleben is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alexandre, Grand Prince of Gutleben until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Marie Joseph Anatole Elie

I believe the correct title here is probably sth like Joseph de Caraman-Chimay the younger. Can someone take a look and fix please? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Since Lugnuts was the only person to reply, and since the link he has given is consistent with the wife, Clara Ward, have moved to Talk:Joseph, Prince de Caraman-Chimay. It isn't redirect locked, so anyone else can move elsewhere. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Succession articles proposed for deletion

Several requests to delete articles entitled "Line of succession to the former throne of X" (e.g. Württemberg, Tuscany, Two Sicilies) have recently been proposed for deletion from Misplaced Pages by Pat Gallacher. Although Wikipedians from various projects are being notified of these requests for removal, I think those who monitor this page may also appreciate being notified. FactStraight (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Line of succession to the British throne, again

So it has now been proposed to restrict the list to only descendants of Elizabeth II. I thought anybody still monitoring this page might be interested in expressing their opinion on this. john k (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Royal Familiy templates

As I'm a self-declared republican, I won't push for these proposed changes. Anyways, I noticed that there's templates of deposed royal families that are titled as the following - Template:Romanian Royal Family, Template:Greek Royal Family, etc etc. IMHO, those should be changed to Template:Former Romanian Royal Family, Template:Former Greek Royal Family (or something similiar) for examples. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that the omission of "former" creates no ambiguity, and that a template's title is not visible in an article, how urgent is this? —Tamfang (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

We need input at Australian head of state AfD

I've nominated that article for deletion, as we don't have Canadian head of state, British head of state, Jamaican head of state, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

King PrithviBirBikramShadev grandson of Maharaj Jung Bahadur.jpg

file:King PrithviBirBikramShadev grandson of Maharaj Jung Bahadur.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Naming conventions for courtesy Lords

Comments would be welcome at Talk:Charles Hay (British general)#Suggested move. Thanks. Opera hat (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

quick question

Do royal dynasties, houses, family pages belong in this wikiproject? If so I'll go ahead and start adding it to their talk pages because I noticed a lot of them like House of Plantagenet, House of York, House of Normandy, Hauteville family aren't tagged as such. Thanks, —  dain- talk   16:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

FA Suleiman the Magnificent in need of care to maintain its status

The editor who initially shepherded Suleiman the Magnificent to FA status has been inactive for many years and the quality of the article has begun to degrade. Any experts who can come in and buff the article up to snuff again would be appreciated.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Bagrat de Bagration y de Baviera

This new article needs attention in terms of references, anglicised names, wikilinks, genealogy, etc. I thought I'd leave you a note, so if anyone is interested, please go ahead. De728631 (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Lord Greville Of Mullingar

Can someone working in this area check this article which I suspect duplicates an existing article as explained on it talk page. Rmhermen (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Chinese royalty portraits up for deletion

Several Imperial Chinese royalty portraits have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• File:Empress Dowager Zhaosheng.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Empress Jiashun.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Empress Xiao Sheng of China.PNG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Empress Xiao Yi Ren.PNG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Empress Xiao Yi.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Empress Xiao Yi.PNG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Guangxu Emperor.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

-- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Also

• File:Emperor Qianlong.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

-- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Frederica of Mecklenburg-Strelitz image issues

Someone put the same image as that of her daughter's article in place of the previous picture. I reverted this but would appreciate some confirmation that the images are correct on both articles. See talk page for further discussion. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Ducele de Halland.jpg

File:Ducele de Halland.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Maharaj Jung London 1850 AD.jpg

File:Maharaj Jung London 1850 AD.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Chinese Emperor renames (and possible NCZH change?)

See Talk:Emperor Gaozu of Later Jin where a large number of Chinese emperors are proposed for renaming. It also appears to be an adjustment in the Chinese emperor naming scheme is proposed (and not on WP:NC-ZH, where it should be) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Dutch monarchs move discussion

Please join in: Talk:Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands#Move discussion DBD 15:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Help needed in Alphabetizing peers "correctly" in a list

We could use some advice and guidance at Talk:List_of_Freemasons#Alphabetizing_members_of_the_British_Peerage as to how best to alphabetize various Royals and Peers who were/are Freemasons. Please swing by and help us out. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Opinion request on House of Silva

I just found House of Silva while patrolling newpages, and it feels mildly suspicious to me -- not least because it was created by someone whose username is "Silvafamilie". As well, the only references are other Misplaced Pages articles.

Those might both be innocent errors from well-intentioned amateurs. Or they might not. And I really don't know where to look for this sort of detail. Can anyone tell if this is genuine, or just a hoax? DS (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

I have begun an RfC on the question of whether it is bias to describe Elizabeth II as "Queen of the United Kingdom" in the infobox. Please comment at Talk:Elizabeth II#Infobox. DrKiernan (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)