Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 293: Line 293:
|Yes
|Yes
|-
|-
|[[Margrethe II of Denmark]]
|'''[[Margrethe II]]'''
|1972-present
|1972-present
|'''No''' <small>(moved since closure of RfC linked in opening statement)</small>
|Yes
|-
|-
|}
|}

Revision as of 22:03, 23 November 2023

Shortcuts

Signatures of medieval French monarchs

I was looking through Wikimedia and found charters of Philip VI of France, Charles V of France, and Charles VI of France. They all have the kings seals but they also have what looks like signatures beside the seals. Are those the signatures of the kings? ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 19:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Caligula

Caligula has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Monarchies in Europe

Monarchies in Europe has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infant rulers

Is an infant with a regent considered a ruler? See for instance Chuzi II, who I presume his mother was the regent. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an underaged royal who becomes the monarch, they will be given a regent, but they are still technically the monarch. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a ruling monarch though, I guess. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We categorise them as Category:Child monarchs. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My question is regarding the first sentence of the article, which states he was a ruler. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"royal" consorts

Should we remove the word "royal" from lists and categories in which none, or not all, of the consorts were married to an actual king or equivalent royal monarch? Example: Category:Lists of duchesses features the word "royal" 14 times, but dukes and duchesses are obviously below the level of "king"/"queen". On the other hand, should we remove it from lists and categories of consorts which were all royal, so that the word "royal" is redundant? It is clear that "consorts" always refers to dynastic spouses, so there is no need to add "royal" where that is obvious. There is no List of ducal consorts of Foo, and no List of Fooian ducal consorts, anywhere on English Wikipedia. We just don't need the adjective 'ducal'. Why would we need the adjective 'royal'?

  • Cases where "royal" is correct, but adds nothing: For instance, all consorts in List of Belgian royal consorts are royal, so "royal" is not needed to distinguish "royal" Belgian consorts from "non-royal" Belgian consorts, because all of them have been royal.
  • Cases where "royal" is incorrect, and adds nothing: In cases such as List of Hessian royal consorts it is always incorrect to call them "royal", because landgraves and grand dukes are always below the level of "king/queen", and although whether "prince-electors" or "electors" were "royal" or not varied in time and place, it never applied to Hesse. Besides, the word "royal" doesn't really add anything significant or necessary to just saying List of Hessian consorts (which already redirects to List of Hessian royal consorts anyway). "royal" is not needed to distinguish "non-royal" Hessian consorts, because all of them were non-royal.
Many such cases can be seen in both Category:Lists of duchesses and Category:Lists of royal consorts. E.g. why are List of Mexican imperial consorts and List of Luxembourgish consorts categorised as "royal" consorts? None of then were married to kings or queens regnant, only to emperors/empresses regnant, counts/countesses regnant, dukes/duchesses regnant, and grand dukes/duchesses regnant.
  • Cases where "royal" applies only to some consorts, but not others: In the List of Bavarian royal consorts, "royal" is incorrect for all consorts from c. 556 to 1797, and it is only correct from 1797 to 1918. In other words, for a total of 1362 years of Bavarian consorts, "royal" applies only for 121 years, to only 4 out of 99 consorts in total. Therefore, I really don't think "royal" is justified, especially as long as we do not split this list into ducal, electoral and royal consorts, in which case "royal" would be a necessary distinguishing addition. (But I don't see a reason why we should split it; the article is fine as it is. It just has a needless extra word "royal" in the title, which is misleading for 95 out of 99 people mentioned in it).

Proposed solution: Let's just get rid of all mentions of "royal" in every category and list of consorts of Foo or list of Fooian consorts, unless and until there is a separate list for non-royal consorts of Foo or Fooian consorts which makes "royal" a necessary distinguishing addition. Examples:

Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Example: Category:Lists of duchesses features the word "royal" 14 times, but dukes and duchesses are obviously below the level of "king"/"queen". That doesn't mean they're not royal. Many European ducal and grand ducal families are considered to be royal families and have royal titles (e.g. Highness). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, but that would mean they are royal for reasons other than being duchesses, and it would only apply in individual cases rather than something we can assume to apply to all duchesses. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome @Surtsicna and Marcocapelle: from the "Bosnian queens" CfR, which inspired me to ask this broader question. As you can see, we currently already have dozens of lists and categories for consorts of monarchs (emperors/kings/dukes/counts etc. male or female) where the word "royal" is not necessary, such as Milan (List of Milanese consorts) and Luxemb(o)urg (List of Luxembourgish consorts). In Category:Lists of duchesses, 53 out of 67 lists do not mention 'royal'. I think Bosnia doesn't need it either. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that we are reinventing the word "consort". The word "consort" means "a husband or wife, especially of a monarch", "a companion or partner". One therefore cannot be a "consort of Bosnia". Using such fancy words where plain English would suffice risks confusing people who do not know them; worse yet, using the word incorrectly risks confusing those who do know them. Category:Consorts of Bosnia could reasonably include all married people from Bosnia. Ditto for article titles such as List of Milanese consorts. Surtsicna (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"a husband or wife, especially of a monarch" is exactly how we are using it, aren't we? Otherwise we would be using "spouse". We are not reinventing anything, it already is plain English. Category:Consorts of monarchs is a child of Category:Spouses of heads of state, and Category:Monarchs, so we are calling any spouse of any monarch a consort, whether they be category:queens consort, category:empresses consort, grand princesses consort, countesses consort etc.
The only other time when English Wikipedia appears to use consort for categorisation purposes is Category:Consorts of deities, and Category:Viceregal consorts (but in some of the Australian and New Zealand cases, the wording "Spouses of Fooian Governors" is preferred). Thus, "consort" has a very strong dynastic connotation, and is rarely – if ever – used outside dynastic contexts (such as deities).
By contrast, I would argue that using fancy words such as "royal" to apply to duchesses is actually reinventing the word "royal". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we are using the word "consort" in the sense of "a husband or wife", then we are positively dumb having titles such as List of consorts of Bosnia. One cannot be the spouse of a country. And what does "Milanese spouses" (as in "Milanese consorts") mean? Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Surtsicna on the basic point of English usage: "Milanese consorts" and especially "Consorts of Bosnia" sound strange to my ear. (The latter would be, like, people who were married to Bosnia?) --JBL (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are using the word "consort" in the sense of "a husband or wife of a monarch". So if I had been the husband of Helen of Bosnia, I would have been a "consort [=husband of the monarch] of Bosnia". It doesn't mean I was married to the country.
"Milanese consorts" in List of Milanese consorts means "wives of the lords and dukes of Milan". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should make it even easier. There is no List of ducal consorts of Foo, and no List of Fooian ducal consorts, anywhere on English Wikipedia. We just don't need the adjective 'ducal'. Why would we need the adjective 'royal'? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... because the construction "consorts of Bosnia" in English doesn't work, that's why. In some contexts, it can be understood that "consort" means "a spouse of a monarch", but when you pair it with "of Bosnia" that overrules the implicit [of a monarch]. I mean, I don't have a theoretical explanation for this, I'm just telling you, as a native speaker of English, how it sounds -- I don't think any native English speaker (at least not of my dialect) would ever write what you're proposing and expect it to be understood in the way you want. --JBL (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Consorts of the rulers of Bosnia" means one thing. "Consorts of Bosnia" does not mean the same thing; what it means instead is nonsensical. The theoretical explanation here is that the word "consort" does not mean "spouse of a monarch" and cannot be used in place of that phrase. What "consort" means, per dictionary definitions, is spouse or companion; it being most commonly used in reference to the spouses of monarchs and deities does not alter its meaning. Surtsicna (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the fact that we have so many lists of consorts I can understand that it may sound nonsensical when you overthink it. I don't think there is a general solution right now, we'd better develop some further case history - as currently happens for Bosnia. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have to overthink it for it to sound nonsensical. You just have to know what the word means. Surtsicna (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I knew what "consorts" meant, but now I'm not so sure. See my comment below. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm prepared to go along with Marcocapelle's Alt rename of Category:Bosnian queens to Category:Queens consort of Bosnia as a first step. It could be that I am wrong about List of Milanese consorts and such; that we really need to add something in order to clarify they weren't married to the country, but to whoever was running the country. I do maintain that "royal" is often not the correct word to add, so at least for now I propose a case-by-case approach. We'll see where that gets us. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation: I must say that JBL saying that native English speakers wouldn't write or say consorts of Foo or Fooian consorts gives me some pause. It sounds natural to me, but I'm a non-native English speaker, so admittedly, my opinion shouldn't be given too much linguistic weight. I was also surprised to find almost no sources on Google Books or Google Scholar using a formulation like Milanese/French/Bavarian consorts. This raises the question why in Category:Lists of duchesses, 53 out of 67 lists do not mention 'royal' (or 'ducal', 'comital', 'imperial' etc.), yet nobody seems to have noticed until now that this is – apparently – a linguistic problem in English. I think developing some further case history, as Marcocapelle suggests, is the right thing to do. But before we do, I think we can already look at decisions such as why List of Austrian consorts was renamed to List of Austrian royal consorts in 2021, and back to List of Austrian consorts in 2022. I'll start trying to answer those questions now, because they may already contain certain precedents that we should take into consideration when deciding this question. Whatever the case, I'll freely admit that at this point, I'm not as confident that we can just remove the word "royal" from all these lists as I was earlier today. We'll see in which direction this exchange goes. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This confirms two points of contention we have seen above. 'Consort' can technically mean anyone's spouse, even though it has strong connections with dynastic spouses of monarchs. On the other hand, 'royal' doesn't quite cut it if we are talking about consorts of non-royal dynastic monarchs/rulers, such as dukes (i.e. duchesses consort). The Austrian renamings show the same tension that we see above. Unfortunately, both of them seem to have been undiscussed moves; there is no talk of this on the talk page. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, Keivan.f did hundreds of undiscussed moves of Fooian consorts to Fooian royal consorts on 14 January 2021. Some of them have been reverted later, such as the Austrian example above. I do not see any discussion anywhere. Keivan.f just repeatedly said Anyone in Foo who's married is a consort for the first hundred-ish edits, then stopped writing edit summaries altogether, and for the last moves of the day started invoking per WP:TITLECON, perhaps because by that point Keivan.f had single-handedly made Fooian royal consorts the new self-invented standard overnight. If this was backed by consensus, I would have no problem with it, but I don't think it is. These are all bold undiscussed moves, some of which have been reverted since. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately I think this means no consensus-based precedent has ever been set. These undiscussed renamings and partial reversions happened within the last 2.5 years, and nobody else seems to have noticed. I think that means we need to establish a new consensus here for the first time.
    The only precedent I really see is Peter Ormond moving several pages on 28 December 2021 from List of consorts of Foo to List of Fooian consorts because of consistency. But Marcocapelle and I recently established Suggestion B that we should rename/rescope all Fooian monarchs to Monarchs of Foo, especially when there is doubt which one is more correct. E.g. if a noblewoman born in Milan marries a king of Bosnia, she is a Milanese queen consort by "nationality", but surely, we are more interested in the fact that she is a consort of the king of Bosnia, regardless of where she was born. The renaming of Category:Cypriot monarchs to Category:Monarchs of Cyprus confirmed the Suggestion B principle. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some lists such as List of Luxembourgish consorts / List of consorts of Luxembourg have never had 'royal' or any other such adjective in the title. Inexplicably, someone did add it to Category:Queens consort at some point (even though Luxembourg has never had any queens or kings), but Aciram correctly removed that miscat in 2020. I cannot help but get the impression that some people associate the word 'consort' automatically with 'royal', 'queen' or 'king', even in countries that have never had kings, queens or otherwise been royal. There is a lot of misnaming and miscategorisation going on here. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: This doesn't mean we don't need adjectives such as 'royal' or 'ducal', just that if we do, they should be applied correctly. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dukes, Duchesses, Grand Dukes, Grand Duchesses, Landgraves, Landgravines, Margraves, Margravines, Electors, Electresses, etc., are all still royal, they’re just below the level of rank of King and Queen (and Emperor and Empress, etc.). - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If so, at what point do we no longer speak of 'royal'? Is every dynastic ruler automatically 'royal'? Royal literally just means "kingly", from French roy = "king". I really don't think it should be applied to any spouse below (or above) the royal (=kingly) level; those are by definition non-royal because they aren't married to kings/queens. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of banesses and queens of Bosnia moved to List of medieval Bosnian consorts

Does this help? I don't think so. If I correctly understood what everyone has been saying here, this just means "List of medieval Bosnians who were married". @Surtsicna @Marcocapelle @JayBeeEll you all convinced me that it was important to go for the phrasing queens consort of Bosnia. Where were you during this RM? I could have really used your support. Now a number of people who haven't read this whole discussion (despite me linking to it and explaining everything) have voted to turn it into something else that doesn't help clarify things the way we agreed to clarify them, and you were absent. Of course, you're not required to participate, but I do feel a bit abandoned.... The Milanese RM Talk:List of Milanese consorts#Requested move 13 July 2023 aren't doing too well either (although at least Marcocapelle supports it, thanks!). What can we best do next in order to try and have article/list names and category names of royalty and nobility align better? Right now it's people here and people there having very different discussions. Can we somehow centralise the conversation? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nederlandse Leeuw this sounds a lot like a WP:TANTRUM because the page didn't get moved to where you wanted it. In any case, consort does not just mean "someone who was married". According to Google English Dictionary (taken from Oxford Languages), "consort" means a wife, husband, or companion, in particular the spouse of a reigning monarch (emphasis my own). And in any case, are your average people going around referring to their husband/wife/spouse as "my consort"? Probably not. I don't see any cause for confusion there. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm to be honest, the first half might look that way, but the comment above wasn't really meant like that. It was more a frustrated admission of failure to accomplish what I was trying and expecting to achieve. I thought I was in it together with the people with whom I thought I had established a consensus here. But they barely participated in the RMs we had discussed above (which they weren't required to, of course, but I had expected them to because we had all agreed here). At the RMs themselves, the consensus I thought we had established here was dismissed as irrelevant, or at least interpreted very differently over there. I didn't expect that, and that was disappointing. At the same time, I tried to be constructive and ask for what we could best do next, because evidently there had been essentially separate, different conversations resulting in separate, different agreements about the same topic. The conclusions about renaming the category and the list are at odds with each other right now.
By the way, I made the exact same argument based on the exact same dictionary earlier, and yet, this was rejected for other reasons, or based on other dictionaries etc. Moreover, I had also argued that the word "consort" wouldn't be used nowadays anymore in modern English except in dynastic contexts, but was also dismissed. So I wish I could agree with you, but unfortunately it's not that simple.
For now, I'm not really looking for taking the lead in solving this question, but if you or anyone else would like to take up the challenge, go ahead. I might participate, but I won't lead. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of interest

A discussion which may be of interest to the members of this group can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Nicky Hilton Rothschild#Requested move 23 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nicky Hilton Rothschild#Requested move 23 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Louis, Duke of Burgundy#Requested move 26 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Louis, Duke of Burgundy#Requested move 26 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Favonian (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Were all 'murdered monarchs' also 'dethroned monarchs'?

Should Category:Murdered monarchs be a subcategory of Category:Dethroned monarchs? Or can one person not be categorised as both simultaneously (as this is either redundant, or will lead to a logical contradiction)?

I'm asking because Anula of Anuradhapura is both in Category:Dethroned monarchs and Category:1st-century BC murdered monarchs. Sorry if this may sound strange or like linguistic nitpicking. But it seems to me that:

  • A: If you wikt:dethrone a monarch who is in office, but you continue to let them live (at least for some time), they are simply no longer a "monarch", because they are no longer in office. If they continue to claim to be the legitimate monarch, that makes them a pretender (with no prejudice against whether that claim is legitimate or not).
  • B: If you murder a monarch who is in office, then it is redundant to say you've dethroned them; due to being dead, they are automatically no longer a "monarch" either, because they are no longer in office.
  • C: If you murder someone after dethroning them, you've not murdered a "monarch", but an "ex-monarch", because they had already been out of office.
  • D: If you execute someone after dethroning them, you've not executed a "monarch", but an "ex-monarch", because they had already been out of office.

I know that it can be a point of view (POV) whether the monarch was really dethroned or not, and especially whether they were still the (legitimate) monarch or not. The classic historiographical problem is the Execution of Louis XVI: was that "putting citizen Louis Capet to justice" (D; as revolutionaries saw it) or "murdering/lynching the rightful King Louis XVI" (B; as royalists saw it)? I can imagine royalists will have maintained that Louis was the rightful monarch of France until his death, even though I think there is consensus in historiography that at least the Insurrection of 10 August 1792 and Louis' subsequent imprisonment (13 August 1792 to 21 January 1793) in the Temple fortress until his execution represents a dethronement. That is scenario A, which could still lead to C or D, depending on whether you consider the Trial of Louis XVI to have been legitimate or illegitimate. But scenario B is no longer possible, because Louis was evidently not in office anymore while imprisoned in the Temple.

All this leads me to the conclusion that we cannot simultaneously put people in the Category:Dethroned monarchs and the Category:Murdered monarchs trees. Because it leads to a logical contradiction. The only scenario in which I can see that happening is that if Hank becomes the monarch of Foo, is dethroned but allowed to live (A), and becomes the monarch of Bar, and is then murdered while in office (B). That means Hank is the dethroned monarch of Foo, and the murdered monarch of Bar, but not the dethroned monarch of Bar. Hank would only be in Category:Dethroned monarchs because of Foo. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In normal language, I don't think a murdered monarch is referred to as "dethroned" (your category B). Dethroned implies that there is life after being a monarch. A murdered monarch is a murdered monarch. They cease to be a monarch for the same reason a monarch dies of natural causes, death, not because they are dethroned. They remain a monarch to the end of their life. We don't refer to dead monarchs as "ex-monarchs". DeCausa (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with both of you. --Marbe166 (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost completely agree, except that in "B" I would classify a ruling monarch that's been murdered as a "past monarch", rather than "no longer a monarch"; a very small distinction but of some importance when it comes to legitimacy/succession: fairly often in history a monarch is murdered only for their heir to ascend the throne, often deriving their legitimacy from shared blood with the previous monarch. I would consider "no longer a monarch" to be more aligned with "ex-monarch", as usually, both imply the line of succession has been vastly disrupted or even ended; while palace/familial coups where a monarch's brother/son/mother's brother's uncle's son seizes the throne do occur, and usually rely upon the legitimacy of the predecessor with some (often extraneous) justification for why the new guy should be able to take the throne, by and large, most cases where the previous monarch is in exile/prison, the line of succession, and the legitimacy derived therefrom, are ended. The distinction, therefore, is that a "past monarch" is fully legitimate and would have continued to be until the end of time or another cause of death, anyone who is "no longer a monarch" has presumably lost their legitimacy ipso facto, the same as an "ex-monarch". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of clarity and a TL;DR: I agree that: For "A", a dethroned monarch is either "no longer a monarch" or a pretender (if they still press the claim), and that for "C" and "D", if a monarch is dethroned and then murdered or dethroned and then executed, they are an "ex-monarch" at the time of death. My only quibble is that per "B", I believe that monarchs who are murdered while ruling should not be categorized as "no longer a monarch" but as a "past monarch", due to legitimacy considerations. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any distinction between "no longer a monarch" and an "ex-monarch". In normal language, they are interchangeable. But, in any case, I don't think it matters to the question originally posed on the murdered/dethroned categorisations. DeCausa (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add that there could be some factual ambiguity about whether a monarch was just murdered or dethroned and then murdered during or shortly after the coup. I'm thinking about some of the Roman and Byzantine emperors for example. There may be a case for some of these being in both categories. But that wouldn't mean Category:Murdered monarchs should be a subcategory of Category:Dethroned monarchs, which is the point of the question. DeCausa (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW - Louis XVI was 'no longer' monarch, by the time he was executed. France had already been a republic for about four months. Examples of former monarchs 'might of' been murdered, while their countries were still monarchies, are England's Edward II & Richard II. GoodDay (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the category was renamed from Murdered to Category:Assassinated monarchs. – Fayenatic London 21:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion for William of the United Kingdom

(non-automated message) Greetings, members of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility! I have initiated a move request here that pertains to multiple royals. While participation is optional, I would appreciate any feedback! (Please note that I have not initiated this process before, so I apologize if this message is unnecessary.) Hurricane Andrew (444) 23:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of Provence has an RFC

List of rulers of Provence has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of Llywelyn the Great move discussion

Hello, I have opened a discussion at Llywelyn the Great about moving the article to 'Llywelyn ab Iorwerth'. If you would like to participate please do so, particularly if you are familiar with Welsh history. Thank you, A.D.Hope (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second-longest reigning monarch of Denmark

There is a discussion about including said information in the lead of the page Margrethe II of Denmark. The thread is Talk:Margrethe II of Denmark#Removal of notable length of reign text from lead. Your input is appreciated. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for David III of Tao

David III of Tao has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Purge consorts of pretenders?

I find it strange that List of royal consorts of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies doesn't end in 1861, and that List of Greek royal consorts doesn't end in 1973. Those kingdoms ceased to exist. It seems pseudohistorical to me to list the consorts of pretenders as if they actually still reigned as monarchs. Should we purge them? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition from me. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Me, either. --JBL (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed such lists from other pages as well.98.228.137.44 (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of interest at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation

(non-automated message) Greetings, fellow members of WP:ROYALTY! For your information, a discussion on WikiProject Disambiguation's talk page is ongoing regarding the appropriateness of including potential regnal names of European and Jordanian heirs in disambiguation pages related to royalty. Given the relevance to our topic focus, I would especially appreciate any well-informed opinions from our community! Thank you, Hurricane Andrew (444) 03:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New royalty and nobility article creation tool

Hi everyone!

I noticed that plenty of articles relevant to this WikiProject were being created without going through the AfC process. I figured some of you might be interested in keeping tabs on those "ghost" articles, so I enlisted the help of User:AlexNewArtBot to generate a report of new articles that fit some criteria (for example, the presence of the word "marquess"). You can always see the Rules and Match log to see what triggered the bot to display some results over others. A new report is generated every 24 hours, usually between 22:00 and 00:00 (UTC).

If you like it, and given enough time for us to tweak it to avoid false positives, do you think it would be a useful addition to the WikiProject page, under the "articles for creation" part of the bot-assisted list?

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2024-09-14 21:38 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.

Cheers, Pilaz (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:William I (disambiguation)#Requested move 10 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:William I (disambiguation)#Requested move 10 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Oscar I of Sweden#Requested move 17 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Oscar I of Sweden#Requested move 17 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans#Requested move 20 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans#Requested move 20 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Eric XIV of Sweden#Requested move 3 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eric XIV of Sweden#Requested move 3 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh royalty discussions

There are discussions concerning potential OR, RS and SCOPE issues on Talk:House of Aberffraw (article) and Talk:King of Wales (article), but could apply to other related articles. Editors of this project may be interested in these discussions, specifically those with an interest/expertise in Welsh history. Any contributions to the discussions would be welcomed. Thanks/Diolch DankJae 23:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using "House of" for Nobility (not Royality)

I know several years back someone was adamant about using Visconti Family instead of House of Visconti. If this is still the case, someone who feels strongly about this might want to review the edits of MarcBgd‎ (talk · contribs). Peaceray (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"House of" is not really idiomatic Eglish, and somewhat pretentious. Perhaps this is its attraction for some editors. Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may very well be, example being The Fall of the House of Usher. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no it isn't. That is literally a house. No one ever talks of, say, the House of Cavendish, though I see we have a redirect. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
House of Windsor, House of Habsburg, House of Este, House of Hohenzollern. I think the broad convention is European ruling dynasties (not necessarily royal) are "House of..." but non-ruling aristocratic families aren't. The Visconti being a ruling family, "House of Visconti" I would say is reasonably common.[1]. DeCausa (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Poe wanted to circumscribe the topic to the destruction of the mansion. If you read the story, it is about the end of the Usher dynasty. The fall of it. And the Usher mansion gets destroyed as well as a result of some apparent supernatural connection. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Princess Pauline of Württemberg (1877–1965)#Requested move 22 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Princess Pauline of Württemberg (1877–1965)#Requested move 22 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Australian monarchy's infobox

Should the Australian governor-general be in the infobox of Monarchy of Australia, with the king? We'll need input, on whether or not this should be done. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is taking place here. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louis X, Duke of Bavaria

Does anyone know the exact date Louis X, Duke of Bavaria in 1516 Louis became Duke? ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 16:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: How should articles on sovereigns of current European monarchies be (re)titled?

A previous RfC determined that there was consensus to support updating WP:NCROY, a guideline that has been a basis for titling articles on European monarchs since the fall of the Western Roman Empire, to explicitly allow the use of shorter titles for these sovereigns if disambiguation is unnecessary. Given this result, which of the following four options is the best way to (re)title Wikipedia articles on pertinent European sovereigns going forward?

  1. Option 1 - Maintain the status quo and issue a WP:MORATORIUM on all requested moves (RMs) for European monarchs’ articles under the scope of WP:NCROY until 365 days have passed since the closure date of this RfC
  2. Option 2 - Rename pertinent article titles to follow WP:NCROY as currently written (whose guidance deferred to WP:COMMONNAME at the time of this RfC’s opening)
  3. Option 3 - Rename pertinent article titles to follow WP:RELIABLE and amend WP:NCROY accordingly
  4. Option 4 - Rename pertinent article titles to follow WP:CONSISTENT and amend WP:NCROY accordingly

All participants are strongly encouraged to read the nominator’s extended rationale before contributing. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended rationale by nominator AndrewPeterT (APT)

NOTE A: This is my (APT’s) first time initiating a RfC, so I apologize if I have done anything improperly.

NOTE B: This RfC is attempting to resolve unsettled concerns regarding the application of WP:NCROY in lieu of WP:NCROY per se. Hence, I am opening this discussion here at WP:ROYALTY instead of WP:NCROY. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles that APT would like the community to focus on

I recognize that there are many articles on the English Wikipedia that are arguably under the scope of WP:NCROY. To avoid overwhelming readers of this discussion, I ask that as a community, we focus our attention on the article titles that I have explicitly listed in this section. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CONTEXT: The information provided below up to the end of this section was originally published by APT on September 18, 2023 as evidence in favor of his argument at the same RfC linked in the opening statement of this RfC. Also, “Adherence to WP:NCROY” refers to whether or not a cited article title followed Guideline 2 of WP:SOVEREIGN at the time APT published his information originally (Link to current text of WP:SOVEREIGN)

NOTES: First, to avoid overwhelming readers not familiar with European royalty, rulers of former monarchies are excluded. Also, as alluded to previously, sovereigns of the Vatican City are excluded because they are popes instead covered by WP:NCCL. Furthermore, the Presidents of France and Bishops of Urgell, the Co-Princes of Andorra, are excluded because they are instead subjected to WP:NCP and WP:NCCL, respectively.

Monarchs of Belgium

All sovereigns that have reigned since Belgium’s independence from the Netherlands in 1830 are included.

Monarchs of Belgium
Title Reign Adherence to WP:NCROY
Leopold I of Belgium 1831-1865 Yes
Leopold II of Belgium 1865-1909 Yes
Albert I of Belgium 1909-1934 Yes
Leopold III of Belgium 1934-1951 Yes
Baudouin of Belgium 1951-1993 Yes (only monarch with name)
Albert II of Belgium 1993-2013 Yes
Philippe of Belgium 2013-present Yes (only monarch with name)

Monarchs of Denmark

All sovereigns that have reigned since the establishment of the Danish House of Glücksburg in 1863 are included.

Monarchs of Denmark
Title Reign Adherence to WP:NCROY
Christian IX of Denmark 1863-1906 Yes
Frederick VIII of Denmark 1906-1912 Yes
Christian X of Denmark 1912-1947 Yes
Frederick IX of Denmark 1947-1972 Yes
Margrethe II 1972-present No (moved since closure of RfC linked in opening statement)

Monarchs of the Netherlands

All sovereigns that have reigned since the establishment of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1815 are included.

Monarchs of the Netherlands
Title Reign Adherence to WP:NCROY
William I of the Netherlands 1815-1840 Yes
William II of the Netherlands 1840-1849 Yes
William III of the Netherlands 1849-1890 Yes
Wilhelmina of the Netherlands 1890-1948 Yes (only monarch with name)
Juliana of the Netherlands 1948-1980 Yes (only monarch with name)
Beatrix of the Netherlands 1980-2013 Yes (only monarch with name)
Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands 2013-present Yes (only monarch with name)

Monarchs of Norway

All sovereigns that have reigned since the dissolution of the personal union of Norway with Sweden in 1905 are included.

Monarchs of Norway
Title Reign Adherence to WP:NCROY
Haakon VII of Norway 1905-1957 Yes
Olav V of Norway 1957-1991 Yes
Harald V of Norway 1991-present Yes

Monarchs of Spain

All sovereigns that have reigned in Spain since the establishment of the House of Bourbon-Anjou in 1700 are included, excluding monarchs from other royal houses.

Monarchs of Spain
Title Reign Adherence to WP:NCROY
Philip V of Spain 1700-1724 and 1724-1746 Yes
Louis I of Spain 1724-1724 Yes
Ferdinand VI of Spain 1746-1759 Yes
Charles III of Spain 1759-1788 Yes
Charles IV of Spain 1788-1808 Yes
Ferdinand VII of Spain 1808-1808 and 1813-1833 Yes
Isabella II of Spain 1833-1868 Yes
Alfonso XII 1874-1885 No
Alfonso XIII 1886-1931 No
Juan Carlos I 1975-2014 No
Felipe VI 2014-present No

Monarchs of Sweden

All sovereigns that have reigned in Sweden since the establishment of the House of Bernadotte in 1818 are included.

Monarchs of Sweden
Title Reign Adherence to WP:NCROY
Charles XIV John 1818-1844 No (and fails to acknowledge Norwegian regnal number)
Oscar I of Sweden 1844-1859 Yes
Charles XV 1859-1872 No (and fails to acknowledge Norwegian regnal number)
Oscar II 1872-1907 No
Gustaf V 1907-1950 No
Gustaf VI Adolf 1950-1973 No
Carl XVI Gustaf 1973-present No

Monarchs of Great Britain or the United Kingdom

All sovereigns that have reigned since the unification of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland in 1707 are included.

British monarchs
Title Reign Adherence to WP:NCROY
Anne, Queen of Great Britain 1707-1714 Yes (only monarch with name)
George I of Great Britain 1714-1727 Yes
George II of Great Britain 1727-1760 Yes
George III 1760-1820 No
George IV 1820-1830 No
William IV 1830-1837 No
Queen Victoria 1837-1901 No
Edward VII 1901-1910 No
George V 1910-1936 No
Edward VIII 1936-1936 No
George VI 1936-1952 No
Elizabeth II 1952-2022 No
Charles III 2022-present No

Monarchs of Luxembourg

All sovereigns that have reigned since the dissolution of the personal union of Luxembourg with the Netherlands in 1890 are included.

Monarchs of Luxembourg
Title Reign Adherence to WP:NCROY
Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg 1890-1905 Yes (only monarch of name)
William IV, Grand Duke of Luxembourg 1905-1912 Yes
Marie-Adélaïde, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg 1912-1919 Yes (only monarch with name)
Charlotte, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg 1919-1964 Yes (only monarch with name)
Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg 1964-2000 Yes (only monarch with name)
Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg 2000-present Yes (only monarch with name)

Sovereign Princes of Liechtenstein

Sovereign Princes of Liechtenstein
Title Reign Adherence to WP:NCROY
Karl I, Prince of Liechtenstein 1627-1684 Yes
Karl Eusebius, Prince of Liechtenstein 1662-1701 Yes (only monarch of name)
Hans-Adam I, Prince of Liechtenstein 1684-1712 Yes
Joseph Wenzel I, Prince of Liechtenstein 1712-1718 and 1748-1772 Yes
Anton Florian, Prince of Liechtenstein 1718-1721 Yes (only monarch with name)
Joseph Johann Adam, Prince of Liechtenstein 1721-1732 Yes (only monarch with name)
Johann Nepomuk Karl, Prince of Liechtenstein 1732-1748 Yes (only monarch with name)
Franz Joseph I, Prince of Liechtenstein 1772-1781 Yes
Aloys I, Prince of Liechtenstein 1781-1805 Yes
Johann I Joseph, Prince of Liechtenstein 1805-1836 Yes
Aloys II, Prince of Liechtenstein 1836-1858 Yes
Johann II, Prince of Liechtenstein 1858-1929 Yes
Franz I, Prince of Liechtenstein 1929-1938 Yes
Franz Joseph II, Prince of Liechtenstein 1938-1989 Yes
Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein 1989-present Yes

Rulers of Monaco

Sovereigns since Monaco became a principality in 1633 are listed, excluding periods of occupation.

Rulers of Monaco
Title Reign Adherence to WP:NCROY
Honoré II, Prince of Monaco 1633-1662 Yes
Louis I, Prince of Monaco 1662-1701 Yes
Antonio I, Prince of Monaco 1701-1731 Yes
Louise Hippolyte, Princess of Monaco 1731-1731 Yes (only monarch of name in Monaco)
Jacques I, Prince of Monaco 1731-1733 Yes
Honoré III, Prince of Monaco 1733-1793 Yes
Honoré IV, Prince of Monaco 1814-1819 Yes
Honoré V, Prince of Monaco 1819-1841 Yes
Florestan, Prince of Monaco 1841-1856 Yes (only monarch with name)
Charles III, Prince of Monaco 1856-1889 Yes
Albert I, Prince of Monaco 1889-1922 Yes
Louis II, Prince of Monaco 1922-1949 Yes
Rainier III, Prince of Monaco 1949-2005 Yes
Albert II, Prince of Monaco 2005-present Yes

Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

APT’s personal opinion on the RfC matter

I support Option 1, Option 3, or Option 4 as the outcome of this RfC. I do not support Option 2 because neither WP:NCROY nor WP:COMMONNAME establishes an explicit numerical threshold or ratio that can be used to choose one possible article title over another.

In addition, I am aware that my views regarding the article titles for European sovereign have received strong opposition from the community, both at the RfC I linked in my opening statement and at a requested move on Elizabeth II’s article that I initiated on July 30, 2023. Therefore, the rest of my statement will instead seek to inform the community of the context regarding each proposed outcome in this RfC instead of attempting to persuade participants to agree with my opinion. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 context: WP:RMs for articles on British monarchs have been frequent

I am aware that WP:MORATORIUMs are counter to some general Wikipedia practices. However, in the past year alone (i.e. since November 1, 2022), at least six different RMs have been initiated to change titles for British sovereigns in particular:

RMs for British monarchs
Article where RM was initiated Start date of discussion End date of discussion
Queen Victoria November 29, 2022 December 6, 2022
Charles III July 23, 2023 July 31, 2023
Elizabeth II July 30, 2023 (that APT initiated) August 4, 2023
George I of Great Britain July 30, 2023 August 15, 2023
Elizabeth II August 14, 2023 August 14, 2023
William IV September 14, 2023 September 22, 2023

It should be noted that the simultaneous discussion of the Charles III, Elizabeth II, and George I RMs in July 2023 caused a user to raise a complaint at WP:ANI about the appropriateness of such discussions occurring. This complaint was redirected to the talk page of WP:RM, where it was concluded that the simultaneous discussions could proceed.

Evidently, the quantity of RM discussions in the realm of British monarch’s title has caused frustration and exhaustion among Wikipedia users. Consequently, I believe that as a community, we need to take a break from arguing over what the best title may be for not just British sovereigns, but all European sovereigns. A moratorium that lasts up to a year after the closing of this RfC therefore seems prudent. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 context: There is a disconnect between the letter of WP:NCROY and current practice

As of the start of this RfC, Guideline III of the Sovereigns section of WP:NCROY stated the following (Bolded emphasis mine):

Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed. In the case of kings, queens regnant, emperors, and empresses regnant whose common name is ambiguous or not the primary meaning, article titles are normally in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Philip IV of Spain; Henry I of France; Joan II of Navarre.

Moreover, Guideline V of the Sovereigns sections of WP:NCROY stated (Bolded emphasis mine):

European monarchs whose rank is below that of king (e.g., grand dukes, electors, dukes, princes), and whose plain common name is ambiguous, should be at the location "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}". Examples: Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria, Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg. This is often usage, and avoids the question of when these duchies became monarchies, as opposed to noble offices within the Kingdom of Germany/the Holy Roman Empire

However, these blanket guidelines do not account for where multiple sovereigns’ titles are currently located. This is clearly illustrated in the list below:

  1. Juliana of the Netherlands is the only queen named Juliana to have an English Wikipedia page, but her article title uses the "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" format regardless.
  2. No other person named Christian X other than Christian X of Denmark has an article of English Wikipedia article. However, the Danish monarch’s page still uses the "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" format.
  3. The only person named Anton Florian with a Wikipedia page is Anton Florian, Prince of Liechtenstein. Nevertheless, the sovereign prince’s article title still follows the "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}" template.

From the above evidence, it can be seen that there is greater nuance to how European monarchs are titled on Wikipedia beyond whether or not they are the only sovereign with their regnal name. Work needs to be done to either amend WP:NCROY accordingly or move a number of article titles to adhere to the current guidelines of WP:NCROY. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 context: WP:RSs show (Name) of (Country) format is more common in secondary sources

WP:RS states the following:

Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).

Based on the following evidence in this section, an additional justification for using the "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" format for article titles on European sovereigns emerges:

  1. For example, when completing a search for “Wilhelmina of the Netherlands” on JSTOR (a digital library of academic journals and books), one sees that 24 primary sources and 122 secondary sources use this designation for the Netherlands’s queen regnant during World War II (i.e. over 400 percent more secondary sources than primary sources).
  2. Likewise, when completing a search for “Christian IX of Denmark” on JSTOR, one sees that 7 primary sources and 74 secondary sources use this exact title for Denmark’s king at the start of the 20th century (i.e. over 900 percent more secondary sources than primary sources). Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 context: The WP:CONSENSUS of the linked RfC in the opening statement has been debatable

In the closing statement of the RfC written on November 2, 2023, the closer noted that ...editors pointed out that the proposal [to explicitly allow shorter titles for European monarchs’ articles in WP:NCROY] reflects current practice…

However, by analyzing a series of RMs initiated before November 2023 for European sovereigns whose targets were more concise titles, a more nuanced picture of this current practice emerges:

NOTE: APT originally included some of these RMs in his evidence for the RfC linked in the opening statement of this discussion.

RMs for European monarchs
Article where RM was initiated Proposed target Was RM successful?
Anne, Queen of Great Britain Queen Anne No
Elizabeth I of England Elizabeth I Yes
George I of Great Britain George I No
Juan Carlos I of Spain Juan Carlos I Yes (Note that this discussion happened on a separate article talk page)
Maria Theresa of Austria Maria Theresa Yes
Napoleon I of France Napoleon I (now at Napoleon) Yes
Oscar I of Sweden Oscar I No
Victor Emmanuel III of Italy Victor Emmanuel III No

As can be seen from the above information, the supposed consensus that was acknowledged in the November 2023 RfC was not truly agreed upon. Additionally, a box in the lede of WP:SILENCE states the following:

Is there consensus?
...
  • Someone complained about my idea →
    You can no longer assume consensus exists because you have seen evidence of disagreement.

I can produce this evidence of disagreement on the spot: Two days after the RfC linked in the opening statement closed, I voiced my disagreement in writing with the final decision (albeit on a user talk page). This edit should indicate in no uncertain terms that one can no longer assume consensus exists regarding that RfC outcome.

Furthermore, I am not the only user who has expressed disagreement with how article titles on European sovereigns have been titled in recent years, as illustrated by this discussion on George III’s talk page.

Finally, as I illustrate in Appendix A of my extended rationale below, there is precedent for longer titles that are not necessarily WP:COMMONNAMEs to be used to identify members of European royalty on Wikipedia. The outcome of the November 2023 RfC is inconsistent with the pattern that I will show in that section. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

APT’s notes for the closer

  1. First and foremost, I thank you in advance for carefully considering all of the opinions expressed in this dicussion. RfCs like mine are no easy task for the community to resolve, and your service is greatly appreciated.
  2. I ask that you be cautious for signs of response bias and participation bias when evaluating the substance of each argument expressed. As with most other functions of Wikipedia, there was no randomness involved in the creation of this RfC. Therefore, the consensus of this sample of Wikipedia editors cannot be generalized to be reflective of the population of all Wikipedia users. Moreover, this discussion may only reflect extreme viewpoints or other biased perspectives.
  3. WP:COMPETENCE notes the following:
Basically, we presume that people who contribute to the English-language Wikipedia have the following competencies … the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up.
Consequently, I ask that in the spirit of this guidance, as you evaluate each argument made in this RfC, you place greater weight on reasonings that show a strong understanding of the implications of this discussion on the article titles of pertinent European monarchs.

Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

APPENDIX A: Evidence of WP:COMMONNAME already being disregarded for multiple European royals (and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT being used)

NOTE: APT originally published this information on September 18, 2023 as evidence in support of his argument in the RfC linked in the opening statement.

Below, I have listed select princes and princesses from five current European monarchies. Moreover, using Google search results, I show that each of their Wikipedia article titles are less common than some alternatives but are still used regardless'. I see no reason why monarchs’ titles should not follow the same trend in the spirit of WP:CONSISTENT:

Wikipedia titles for European princes and princesses
Title Google hits for Title Alternative name Google hits for Alternative name Percentage comparison of Google Title hits with Google Alternative hits
William, Prince of Wales 659,000 Prince William 129,000,000 0.5% of Google Alternative hits
Catherine, Princess of Wales 1,220,000 Kate Middleton 152,000,000 0.8% of Google Alternative hits
Diana, Princess of Wales 4,940,000 Princess Diana 53,500,000 9.23% of Google Alternative hits
Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex 1,850,000 Prince Harry 170,000,000 1.09% of Google Alternative hits
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex 4,870,000 Meghan Markle 347,000,000 1.40% of Google Alternative hits
Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon 122,000 Princess Margaret 12,200,000 1% of Google Alternative hits
Anne, Princess Royal 452,000 Princess Anne 14,900,000 3.03% of Google Alternative hits
Prince Andrew, Duke of York 310,000 Prince Andrew 78,800,000 0.39% of Google Alternative hits
Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh 184,000 Prince Edward 95,500,000 0.19% of Google Alternative hits
Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark 62,000 Prince Frederik 640,000 9.69% of Google Alternative hits
Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway 18,600 Prince Haakon 271,000 6.86% of Google Alternative hits
Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland 26,200 Prince Carl Philip 797,000 3.29% of Google Alternative hits
Leonor, Princess of Asturias 130,000 Princess Leonor 954,000 13.63% of Google Alternative hits

Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Royalty_and_Nobility&oldid=1186540748"