Wikipedia talk:Notability (royalty)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
August 4 – August 10 2006 August 10 – August 28 2006

I've archived the second set of discussions due to length. The first archive deals with the issues of the original version of the guideline (most of which no longer exists). The second archive deals with the restructuring and new criteria. It seems that agreement has been reached on most points; the last roadblock (thus far) is to more fully define what constitutes "higher nobility" in different countries. Kafziel 12:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Kafziel, you seem to be working under the mistaken assumption that regular edits have to be discussed beforehand. Please see WP:BOLD and WP:NOT (not a bureaucracy). If you disagree with something please give a reason and discuss; don't disagree for the sole reason that "process wasn't followed". >Radiant< 15:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A lot of pages link here, and not just via the notability template. When you moved the page you created an insane amount of double redirects, and you just left them. Reverting was the easiest way to fix that. I actually don't oppose a move to another title (if it's done right), but "notability (nobility)" just doesn't sound good. Maybe something like "royalty and nobility"? I guess it's a moot point anyway until the merge proposal is finished. Kafziel 16:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Please get your facts straight. Only 60 pages link here, and only two of those are redirects (and only seven pages link to those redirects). I do not consider two to be "an insane amount". >Radiant< 16:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Merge 2 Systemic bias? 2.1 Eurocentrism? 3 Barons really notable? 4 Just weighing in 5 William FitzClarence, 2nd Earl of Munster 6 Pretenders 7 Uncles, aunts, and cousins

[edit] Merge

[edit] Systemic bias?

Now I'm sorry if I seem to be overcritizing this page but I just simply don't get it. I'm sure that people worked hard on it and have been discussing it for quite a while, but if the point of a guideline is only obvious after looking through several weeks' worth of conversation, then it's not a very good guideline. The archives also have several comments along the lines of "unless this is intended to solve some sort of actual controversy that is taking place, it seems entirely arbitrary". At the very least this page should state its purpose.

The page lists five points, two under "nobility" and three under "lesser nobility". Now it seems to me that most of those are redundant: anyone from the royal family, or in a high position with legal status, in an official capacity such as ambassador, or in a national order would already be notable per WP:BIO (indeed, we don't need a list to say that "presidents, nobel laureates and famous actors" are automatically notable).

The first point, however, is that British Peers and holders of courtesy titles are automatically notable. First, this appears to be a case of systemic bias. And second, there are quite a lot of barons and their wifes and heirs, and I'm sure that several of them do important things or frequently appear in the news, but I'm not at all convinced that all of them are de facto notable.

I wholeheartedly agree that a Royal Family of any real country is notable (AFD seems to agree, e.g. Arthur Chatto), and would be happy to add that to WP:BIO, but other than that I think we should reconsider the need of this page. >Radiant< 10:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems redundant with WP:BIO. In the cases where this guideline would apply, WP:BIO already clarifies that they are notable and, as said above, if WP:BIO says they aren't notable and this says they are, that is a peculiar contradiction that if necessary could be satisfied with a few phrases properly within WP:BIO. In the rest of the cases, this guideline just says 'refer to WP:BIO'. The only part that is different is "The subject is no further than 8th in the order of succession to the throne.", but this is just arbitrary; the order of succession is never exhausted so far, why not 6th or 10th? WP:BIO already would cover this where appropriate, and again could be clarified by a short addition to it. —Centrx→talk • 17:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm really done trying to explain this over and over and over and over and over and over. I guess this vocal minority is content to let the ambiguity of BIO continue to make gigantic debates out of the subject of nobility, so I don't really care what happens to it anymore. I do want to point out, however, that 8th in the line of succession is not arbitrary, and if you read the previous discussions you would see that it has been exhausted that far. The whole matter—like every other question and objection that has been raised—has already been discussed at length and settled to (we thought) everyone's satisfaction. I really can't be bothered to do any more with this. Kafziel 21:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eurocentrism?

Copied and adapted from remarks I made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Igwegbe Odum, the Omenuko of History

The primary problem with the proposed guideline on Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) is that it is fairly obviously Eurocentric. A number of problems exist in attempting to analogize out of this to non-European traditional leaders. Nations of the sort whose borders are recognised by international law may represent colonial impostures that don't correspond to local realities. Similarly, the fact that the holder of a traditional title holds no legal precedence recognized by a national government may not accurately reflect the fact that local traditions make them persons whose decisions are given great importance. For example, the office of the Oba of Benin continues to exist, and the Oba is treated with great deference, even if the kingdom no longer exists as a legal entity, and the territory where the Oba's writ extends crosses several national borders. Per WP:BIAS, each holder of the title is as entitled to an article as the kings or queens of England, as far as I can see.

In order to be successfully applied, some kind of analogical rules need to be added, and some recognition taken of the fact that various traditional titleholders possess authority, or at least celebrity, even if their titles are no longer particularly consequential under codified law. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[Just poking my head in for a moment] Why does everyone always throw around the Eurocentric thing? This has nothing to do with Eurocentrism; the rules apply equally from the United Kingdom to Saudi Arabia to Thailand. Allowing for traditional leaders of powerless fallen monarchies also allows for self-proclaimed leaders such such as Prince Roy of Sealand. If the Oba of Benin qualifies under BIO (which shouldn't be hard if he's notable), then what's the problem? This guideline is mostly for people whose contributions are hard to quantify, not for people who are notable in other ways. Kafziel ^Talk 17:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure how to respond, largely because I don't think that it's impossible to draw up a guideline that allows traditional leaders while disallowing self-proclaimed rulers of imaginary micronations. Again, at least part of the point is that these leaders may not be "powerless" even if their powers derive from the consent of the societies they govern rather than from legal or constitutional recognition. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If their powers derive from the consent of a majority of the governed, why don't they have any legal recognition whatsoever? On the other hand, if their powers derive from a minority within the body of the governed, what makes them different than the leaders of imaginary micronations? Both are powerless leaders of sub-national entities that aren't recognized internationally and don't have enough of a constituency to establish any real measure of power. Seems the same to me. A leader of an inner city street gang may have the power to assemble a small army but still doesn't get an article without meeting WP:BIO. Kafziel ^Talk 19:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"Inner city street gang"? I've truly admired your initiative and thankless efforts on this guideline, even when we disagreed on specifics. But this is a sad turn of affairs, and doesn't seem to really be about Wikipedia. I'm out of this discussion. Lethiere 23:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

People bring up Eurocentrism because they are concerned that in an English-language medium written predominantly by writers steeped in Western cultures, if we are going to promote objectivity and uptake of WP worldwide, we can and should pro-actively monitor manifestation of our biases in articles. Those of us who have that concern would like to prevent articles from appearing unfair or inviting criticism that could have been anticipated. In our archived discussion, I raised concerns about adopting standards that are significantly easier for Western royalty/nobility to meet than non-Westerners. Although you've said before that Eurocentrism in articles is not a concern of yours, we're all problem-solving here so why not address this together? Applying the same standards to everyone is non-discriminatory, but if those standards tend to reflect Western values or historical traditions, they may benefit from being looked at from the point of view of how they are likely to affect the notability of non-Westerners. What's notable in the rural regions of Benin may not be well-known among Wiki editors, nor trackable on the Internet yet. To counter that, we can look at, e.g., how hereditary chieftains are defined and recognized locally, and adopt standards that are inviting rather than forbidding -- just as you did when looking at Euro-royals and peers to design this guideline. For example, Goodwill Zwelithini is the recognized King of 7 million+ Zulus, but he does not meet this guideline's definition of a sovereign of a "notable monarchy" because 1. His title is fully acknowledged by South Africa's government, but his strictly legal position is merely Traditional Leader" and 2. His realm is a people, not a land. Sure, he gets in based on Google hits, but there are other Traditional Leaders in Africa, Asia, and the Americas who "reign" just as truly and over just as many people as Albert II of Monaco does, but their mother wasn't Grace Kelly and they haven't made it to Google yet, although those of us who live in or visit their realms, or have read offline local coverage or books about them know of their positions, but may have a hard time getting them past Wiki's verifiability standard. One solution: grandfather them in. There's a win-win available here. Let's go for it. Lethiere 20:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Goodwill Zwelithini already qualifies under WP:BIO, so he doesn't need to be included here. This guideline deals more with whether or not his 27 children should each have their own articles. Everyone keeps talking about some imaginary case of discrimination or centrism, but nobody can come up with real examples of articles that would be unjustly deleted under these guidelines. There are probably more minor traditional leaders in Africa than there are archdukes in Germany; nobody cried Eurocentrism when we said German archdukes were too numerous and powerless to qualify. These definitions maintain the idea of what most of the entire world considers royalty and nobility. Not just Europe, but Asia, Australia, North America, South America, and a good bit of Africa. If someone finds themselves a minor exception to a major rule, Wikipedia is not required to give them equal representation.

I really didn't come here to argue the merits of the guideline itself; it doesn't matter to me if it changes, gets merged, or gets rejected altogether. A grandfather clause is fine with me, as is a guideline that says everyone who has so much as looked at a famous person can have an article. The whole reason I think this needs to be separate from BIO is because it needs to have room to define the cultural exceptions that one finds around the world. If consensus feels that this is one of those exceptions, by all means, put it in. It just irks me when people try to get their way by claiming prejudice, that's all. Kafziel ^Talk 22:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, Kafziel, are you aware of what an Archduke is? By definition, an Archduke is a member of the Imperial House of Austria, and thus, in fact, all are notable under the notability criteria (at least, all archdukes born before November 1918, as well as all children of Emperor Charles born after that - more recent members of the Habsburg family would appear to need to qualify under WP:BIO. I would note, however, that there have never been that many Archdukes. In November 1918, there were 31 living archdukes, for instance. Most of them, I would add, do not have articles in wikipedia. I think it would be fair enough to have a rule saying that traditional rulers of non-western countries should be included, if their position can be verified. If the Prince of Schaumburg-Lippe is automatically notable (which, it would seem, he is, based on "Pretenders to European thrones are considered notable, as are their consorts and heirs-apparent and presumptive.") then I don't see why genuine African tribal leaders should not be, as well. I think the sentence "This can be extended to other pretenderships if it can be demonstrated that the pretendership itself is notable," can be understood to apply here. If the tribal chieftainship itself is notable, so is the holder, and one only has to demonstrate the former, not the latter. john k 18:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barons really notable?

I'd like to propose taking off English minor peers, such as Barons, from the automatic notability list. There must be hundreds if not thousands of them, and as far as I'm aware they form no part of the English succession. Espresso Addict 22:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you define minor? Why is an hereditary viscount, earl, marquess or duke any more notable than an hereditary baron, other than having inherited a higher title? Apart from the handful of Royal Dukes and a few others who are related to the Royal Family in some way or other, none have anything to do with the succession. Besides, it has always been an apparent unwritten rule that all British peers are notable. -- Necrothesp 01:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd personally be happy to remove all peers lacking other notability, but I thought that was unlikely to gain much support. The higher ranks of the peerage are significantly fewer in number than the lower ranks, and so contribute considerably less visible 'royaltycruft', if I may use the term. As to your second point, I thought this was a page for discussing unwritten rules? Espresso Addict 01:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is, but your proposal would lead to mass deletions of articles that are already here. The simple fact is that people tend to be interested in other people with titles. Also remember that until recently these people were all members of parliament. -- Necrothesp 02:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The last point makes very good grounds for reconsidering the policy ;) Eh, perhaps I just got ticked off by someone on AfD insisting that the eldest son of a baron is inherently notable, per this page. Espresso Addict 02:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That person misread the policy: Henry Lytton-Cobbold is neither a peer nor holder of a courtesy title (because heirs of viscounts and barons do not bear courtesy titles. They do hold the courtesy style of "Honourable", but that's different :-) However, if you want to pursue this, barons are not the ones to build your case on. That's because there are so many of them because most are life peers rather than hereditary nobles. Therefore they will almost certainly have done something to merit the title, and that "something" will have been written up by the media at the time of ennoblement, so they will pass Wiki's test of notability even without this proposed guideline. Hereditary peers are a shrinking lot because only one (Harold MacMillan in 1984, as a retiring Prime Minister) has been created (with the expectation that the title would pass) on in more than 40 years (in the UK: Belgium and Spain, for instance, continue to create hereditary nobility). From 1964 the number of life barons rose (they were only allowed since 1958, and more than 1,000 have since been created), and they continue to be created. The ranks above baron are not made life peers, and they were discontinued earlier than the 1960s, the higher the title: the last marquess was in the 1930s, and the last (non-royal) duke was in 1874. So they too are shrinking naturally. There are many hundred fewer viscounties than baronies. If you wanted to delete all nobles created in the UK below the rank of earl you would, as noted earlier, be deleting hundreds of articles, and hundreds more for the higher titles because, although rarer, higher titles are more likely to have individual entries for each peer in the family (and often their titled relatives), and many extinct peerages have Wiki articles. Part of the point of this guideline was to recognize that many of them are here already and some being created as we write. One problem with eliminating that part of the "unwritten" rule is that it simply follows the practice of the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, generally regarded as a model for Wikipedia, which did treat peers and royalty as inherently notable. But a point made above also bears repeating: so many articles about titled people are being written on Wiki because, despite the disinterest of most and the disapproval of some, many people do find titled nobles worth reading about per se, and will add them if they don't find them. Lethiere 04:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the point about the heir of Barons/Viscounts; I'd thought that was the case, but thought I must be missing something. Perhaps that could be explicitly stated in the notability guidelines to avoid further confusion?

I have little objection to life peers being included, as their contributions are almost always either noteworthy or at least notorious. Also the argument that previously peers had the automatic right to sit in one of the Houses of Parliament takes care of all peers born/created before the cut-off date, so there's no great need to delete pages retrospectively. This change also makes the policy of the 1911 Britannica entirely inapplicable. (I've never seen the fact that 1911 Britannica doesn't include pages for computer programs cited in software AfDs ;) )

However, while I do take your point that the number of hereditary peers is currently shrinking, there's still hundreds of articles that are pure nobilitycruft, with no more real notability than, say, the children of pop stars, who are explicitly excluded under current guidelines. Just because articles are being created in good faith doesn't necessarily mean that the articles should be allowed to remain -- witness the numerous pages created and speedied daily. Perhaps it's time to draw some lines in the sand? Espresso Addict 05:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. As a sometime perpetrator of nobilitycruft, I'd suggest that perhaps nobility should be considered some sort of mitigating or enhancing factor to notability (with regards to post-"reform" peers). If the amount of data supplied doesn't rise above birthdate, enumeration of family, and occupancy of family home, it should be fair game for deletion. On the other hand, if it says that Lord X was educated at Eton, trained as a solicitor, has worked with minor legal firm Foo & Co. since 1973, and chairs the local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Shrubbery—which would probably not be notable achievements in isolation—perhaps his peerage should put him over the top for acceptability. (Incidentally, as regards courtesy peers, I can think of an exception to their automatic notability—only those that reach their majority, or do something exceptional in their minority ought to be listed.) Choess 16:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that nobility could be considered a 'Brownie point' on the notability scale. If nothing else, it increases the likelihood that the person's existence can be independently validated. What I'm not in favour of is the automatic notability which the current guidelines would seem to confer on inherited titles where the holder has no other obvious notability. PS No offence, I hope, on the nobilitycruft coinage -- tongue firmly in cheek there. Espresso Addict 21:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, none taken. I tend to be fairly deletionist, in fact, but I'm easily seduced by the prospect of filling holes in orderly sequences (like the nobility). I think Necrothesp's suggestion, below, that the HoL reform of 1999 be set as a cut-off date (depriving hereditary peers of their legislative rights, a substantial part of the case for automatic notability) is the way to go on this. Choess 22:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is neither a given that consensus wants articles on all barons, nor that not explicitly stating so in a proposal would lead to mass deletions. I think a prudent way to gauge consensus would be to nominate three or four articles on a lesser baron for deletion, and see what debate develops. This guideline should reflect actual practice. >Radiant< 08:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't quite imagine how this process would be a reliable measure. I would predict that many of those that monitor AfD disapprove or don't see notability in nobles per se, period. I would also predict that many of those that do, don't monitor AfD and monitor some barons, but not most, therefore their points of view would probably be under-represented and their votes largely absent. The deck seems stacked to me ab initio, and I'm not sure that I would consider the outcome representative, or that others interested in nobility but not notified of the vote would consider it so either. I think that the hope for this guideline, before it ran out of steam, was to propose a relevant and reasonable standard/cut-off, gather input for it over time, and then put the proposal through WP's vetting process, having already gradually garnered the attention of interested editors. That said, I'm merely expressing my view, and I have no objection to taking such a poll to see what issues get raised, although I don't know how one would select "minor" barons from all those out there. Also, this leaves out Continental barons. Lethiere 20:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly when we still have articles certain Scottish feudal titles articles that appear vanity projects they seem a rather more obvious candidates than barons for removal Alci12 17:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Propose 'em all for AfD -- I'd certainly vote to remove them! (As long as there was no other evidence of notability.) Espresso Addict 21:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen those. The content probably should be moved out in penny-packets to the articles on previous holders, or such of them as are notable, and the residue zapped — their content on the supposed feudal baronies themselves is minimal. But appeal to bad precedents is not a good defense of other articles. Choess 22:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Per deck stacking on AfD, the proposed deletions could be notified at relevant pages (such as this one, or the relevant Biography workgroup) to ensure that everyone got a fair say. Though that might stack the deck for inclusionists. Espresso Addict 21:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:BIO states that "members of a national, state or provincial legislature" are notable. That means that all peers who inherited their title before their right to sit in the Lords was abolished are notable even under our main biographical notability standard. There are currently very few barons who succeeded to the title after their right to sit was abolished. So that leaves only a handful of barons who are not inherently notable, does it not? -- Necrothesp 13:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

As above, I agree that peers who held the right to sit in the House of Lords clearly meet WP:BIO. I think the real question here is, are peers considered notable because they have the right to sit in the House of Lords (in which case, post-reform peers are no longer automatically notable and these guidelines should reflect that), or for some unstated independent reason? If we're talking about a reason for notability that's independent of the former legislative role, then I think that should be made clear, so that those of a republican mind can argue against. Espresso Addict 21:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot, for the sake of developing this guideline.

• I consider that the real issue here is objection to "hereditary notability". This is, essentially, a political mindset that is inappropriate to impose upon articles on Wiki: As mentioned above, without even knowing what grounds for the notability of nobles might be raised here, we know that some of those who consider themselves deeply "republican" in sentiment will oppose their inclusion, regardless of the merits, in order to protect Wiki from the notion that some people are notable for reasons that are incompatible with egalitarian and democratic points of view. As a social and political egalitarian myself, I'm suspicious of Wiki policies that impose elitist values on Wiki's readership. But that's not what this is about. This is about people who not only don't particularly want to read about nobility themselves, but who also don't want you to read (or write) about nobility -- in Wikipedia. It's censorship based on reverse snobbery.
• Their argument's analogy to the unsuitability of articles on "children of celebrities" doesn't apply here for two reasons:

1. Encyclopedias have not usually included articles about celebrities' kids -- but they have included articles about nobility (which includes their kids by definition).
2. "Celebrity" is a phenomenon that is about people's interest in selected individuals, and only by extension to things associated with that individual. Whereas royalty and nobility are phenomenona that are intrinsically about family, and only incidentally about the individuals who happen to bear the family titles currently. It is a distinction (i.e. a form of notability) conferred (or recognized) by an entity possessing the legal authority to do so upon an individual (monarch or peer) with the express intent of being extended to that individual's descendants for reasons of state (i.e. as a reward or incentive). People's interest in the relatives of celebrities they like is arguably intrusive. People's interest in the titled descendants of monarchs and ennobled persons are focusing their attention precisely where a nation's lawful authority has invited that attention to focus.

• Royalty are deemed intrinsically noteworthy, not because of personal deeds, but because their kinship to monarchs confers upon them national (and sometimes international) position (usually, though not invariably, reflected by title), prominence, and constitutional relevance. The same is true of nobility on a lesser scale, except that they do not usually hold constitutional importance. But the 1911 EB didn't restrict articles on peers to those that did or could sit in the House of Lords (or every English peer would have had an article). Most eligible British peers never participated in Parliament, and most of those that did were not "notable" for their deeds therein. Only 16 of Scotland's 100+ and 28 of Ireland's 100+ peers could even sit in Parliament as such, but there are numerous articles on titled non-English nobles in the EB. Rather, the history of their families, the uses made of their positions, and the interest the public had in them were the criteria, along with space considerations. For WP the current issue with nobility should be practical, not substantive: because there are so many of them, let's seek reasonable ground rules to limit their presence on WP so that "nobility-cruft" does not seem obtrusive. And so that editors interested in contributing to articles about royalty/nobility get some guidelines that channel their interest in WP productively, and don't set everybody up for edit wars between those who think all of their contributions are trivial, politically-incorrect and a nuisance, and those that will continue to add such articles on the grounds that they are 1. of interest and 2. historically encyclopedic.
• Excluding nobility articles would be a reversal of encyclopaedic practice, typically adocated for on relatively recent, egalitarian principles that are inadmissably POV: the belief by some that peers shouldn't be considered notable may be a growing trend, but it does not make them non-notable. Whereas treating peers as non-notable is ahistorical: The burden of proof that historical encyclopaedic practice has been overturned due to a sufficiently great change in current standards of notability (rather than due to, e.g. space considerations -- a limitation not relevant to Wiki) rests upon the advocate for change. Thanks to broader literacy, more affordable periodicals, and the Internet, it is just as likely that popular interest in the titled nobility has grown rather than diminished.
• Thus far no argument has been put forth here that royalty and nobility have lost notability -- rather, the chief argument presented is, implicitly, that they did not deserve it previously, and that Wiki should pro-actively strip them of it or substantially reduce it. That is not Wiki's proper job. 143.231.249.141 Lethiere 00:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remember that guidelines on Wikipedia are descriptive rather than prescriptive. The reason I suggested AFD is that most notability guidelines are based, for a large part, on AFD discussions. It is not true that AFD is inherently biased against any class of articles; indeed, it is monitored both by people who 'clean out' and by people eager to save articles. At some point in the future, someone will undoubtedly nominate some article on nobility for deletion - if by that point this guideline hasn't taken AFD precedent into consideration, one cannot reasonably expect that AFD will take this guideline into consideration. >Radiant< 20:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I might be wrong (please point to examples, if you know of any), but I don't get the impression that the guidelines reflect the tenor of AfD discussions over the past months. I've seen a number of articles retained based on nth-heir-to-the-throne claims, but I can't offhand recall examples based on peerages with no heir-to-the-throne claim. Espresso Addict 22:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you mean this guideline, or other guidelines? I don't think we should state a specific N such that the first N heirs are notable and the rest aren't (since any N would be arbitrary); rather, we could state that people "close" in line to the throne are notable for that reason. I don't have any examples for you since I haven't read AFD lately, and neither am I an expert on British nobility. My point is simply that if you expect AFD to use this as a guideline for keeping or deleting articles on nobles, it would help to have some precedent. >Radiant< 22:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • When previously discussed, the rationale for choosing a specific N was that it was a compromise between those who consider anyone in Britain's 900+ line of succession to the British throne Wiki-notable (and articles on them proliferate as we speak), and those who suggested some specific N as an automatic cut-off. The number selected, 8, was by no means arbitrary (in fairness, the rationale presented raised no dissent that I can recall other than mine): Historically, no monarch could be identified as succeeding to a European throne who had been any further removed in the order of succession than eighth: Duke Maximilian I of Pfalz-Zweibrucken became Elector of Bavaria in 1799, and Prince Carlo Alberto of Savoy-Carignan became King of Sardinia in 1831, each having at one time been as far down as #8. Calculated by consanguinity, the most distant kinsman to succeed was believed to be Henri IV le Grand de Bourbon, King of Navarre, who succeeded {after war} his 9th cousin-once-removed on the throne of France in 1689. It's possible, though, that ex-Duke Adolf of Nassau was even more distantly related to King Willem III of the Netherlands when he succeeded him in 1890 as Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg -- but no one has advocated extending notability out to 9th cousin! I agree that this guideline should take under consideration AfD discussions on the notability of royalty and nobility, but I don't know how one would efficiently dredge up such data? Lethiere 01:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • For the sake of accuracy: the Elector Palatine Karl IV Theodor succeeded his 13th cousin once removed, Maximilian III Joseph as Elector of Bavaria in 1777. I would imagine that the 1890 Luxembourg succession was between even more distant relations. john k 16:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I was referring to these guidelines. I'm actually coming at this from the opposite angle, as I was pointed at this page from the currently ongoing AfD debate on Henry Lytton-Cobbold. I agree that the fixed n argument is peculiar, but I've seen it used several times over the past months on AfD. Espresso Addict 22:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I stand corrected, the limit has a far better reason than I thought. Maybe a short sentence explaining this should be added to the page? >Radiant< 09:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That's rather idealized. The degree to which AfD represents an informed consensus will vary widely from example to example; a clear and well-justified guideline will, in fact, carry some prescriptive weight among those who may not be intimately familiar with the workings of the British honours system. Choess 22:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's idealized. However, this page shouldn't be strictly based on AFD debate - it should take it into account, and also take expertise on the subject into account. >Radiant< 22:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So I've been looking at a bunch of baron pages and many of them just state how the person in question is related to other barons. And then every person in that family has an article like that. Wouldn't it be better to just make one big article for each baronship or whatever it's called and then only give individual ones to people who've done things on their own.?--Lairor 03:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, all life peers, all hereditary barons in the Peerage of England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom before 1999, and in the Peerage of Ireland before 1801, as well as all Scottish Lords of Parliament [ETA: before 1707 and between 1963 and 1999] qualify under WP:BIO:

Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature.

The House of Lords is a national legislature. The Irish House of Lords before 1801 was arguably at least a provincial legislature, and possibly a national one. The Scottish House of Lords was a national legislature. Given that this will include the majority of peers, it makes sense to expand the criteria so that all peers are automatically notable. Being a peer is more or less newsworthy. There are news stories when otherwise boring, ordinary people not closely related to earlier peers at all inherit earldoms. If a Duke is arrested for fraud, there's a lot more attention to the case than an ordinary fraud case. If an earl is murdered, it gets reported in major media, even if the guy did little of note himself. I would suggest that peers aren't necessarily notable for what they have done - they are notable for who they are. Also, the fact that articles are bad doesn't mean that they can't be made better - it's quite possible that a particular peer has done something of interest, and that it's just not in the article. john k 12:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for explaining this to me. I was unaware of the House of Lords connection. I'm from Canada and the concept of hereditary government is very foreign to me so I'll make sure to be more careful to fully research the subject in the future. Honest mistake on my part.--Lairor 13:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just weighing in

I haven't gone to the trouble of reading all the archives, but just to put my two cents in here, I think this could be developed into a helpful guideline; for example, there is a WP guideline, I believe, that all US High Schools are considered notable, by definition. Makes things easier. I also support the idea that some people are notable because of who they are, rather than having done anything that would otherwise be notable. For example there are some children of United States politicians who are notable only because they (the children) are famous (such as Al Gore III). And there are some non-famous U.S. government officials who are notable essentially because of their position (or former position) alone such as Bushrod Washington. So it seems perfectly fine to me to try to develop standardized guidelines for notabiltiy of nobility per se. That said, the proposed guidelines here seem to me way too over-inclusive. I do not believe that any spouse of any cousin of anyone who has ever been the monarch of any country is notable (the spouse of a cousin of the monarch of, say, Japan in 734 C.E. automatically notable? Doubtful.) . Would it be useful to narrow the scope of the guideline somewhat to what is indisputably notable, and then slowly add additional categories to the list by consensus? E.g., limit the guideline at first to monarchs, their spouses, children and siblings, those who are 3-4 spots away from ascending to the throne, and any other noble whose hereditary title entitles them (sorry) to a role in government, however nominal. Thesmothete 06:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the guidelines should perhaps be restricted to modern Europe, which is, I think, where most expertise of those of us devising the thing is held. In terms of spouses of cousins, surely Princess Michael of Kent, say, is notable, to give a current example. I would think that anyone who, in their own time, was about as prominent as Princess Michael is probably notable enough to have an article. I'd add that there should only be articles if they can actually be decent articles, and not simply storehouses of genealogical information, as a large number of our articles on even indisputably notable royals tend to be. If all that we know about a person is their basic genealogical statistics, we probably shouldn't include them. But I think that for most European royals, considerably more information is available, if one makes the effort to search it out. john k 18:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if the name and something (some deeds) of a Japanese woman in 734 CE has been preserved to our days, that is presumably test enough to attest her notability for english wikipedia. If nothing is known of such person, an article will be deleted on basis of it being empty (if it ever was created); if it is not empty (I believe that a mere mention of genealogical position equals with "empty"), it should probably exist. Marrtel 04:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What about a person living in Stone Age whose name is known? Would you delete such article? Marrtel 04:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether the royal connection alone justifies notability. Obviously, if a person is notable for reasons other than a blood relationship to a royal, then the deserve a page. The question we are discussing is "when is a person notable, solely for being related to a royal?" (It seems likely to me that all people whose names are known from the period before writing was invented would be notable, by definition. Likewise, not all persons whose names are known by accident are notable, just because their names are known. For examle, there is surviving ancient Greek grafitti that says things like "Themoclates [an athelete otherwise unknown to history] is really hot!" This does not make Themoclates notable. Likewise, if our only record of "Huripidies" was a ledger of which royal cousins went on a boat trip with the King, "Huripidies" would not be notable. Thesmothete 19:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William FitzClarence, 2nd Earl of Munster

Someone has created William FitzClarence, 2nd Earl of Munster, and another someone has attached a {{prod}} deletion tag. The article doesn't really make any claims of notability for FitzClarence, but perhaps it can be fixed up. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the prod tag. This article should be taken to AfD if somebody wants it deleted, although as a peer and thus a member of Parliament Munster already meets WP:BIO notability criteria. -- Necrothesp 17:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

We've historically considered all peers to be inherently notable. As Necrothesp notes, he had a seat in the House of Lords. john k 18:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pretenders

The phrasing about pretenders, which I believe that I suggested, in this proposal are currently being used over at Talk:Pretender by a supporter of "HRH Dom Rosario, Duke of Braganza", to support Dom Rosario's notability and inclusion on wikipedia. Dom Rosario is an Italian who claims to have been chosen as successor by "Maria Pia of Coburg-Braganza," a woman who claimed to be the illegitimate daughter of King Carlos I of Portugal and the successor to King Manuel II in the "constitutionalist" claim to the Portuguese throne (due to the exclusion of the Miguelist line, supported by most Portuguese monarchists since 1932, in the 1838 constitution). As, such, it seems to me that the mention of pretenders needs to be seriously tightened up, or else removed. john k 12:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncles, aunts, and cousins

The guideline currently states: "The definition of a royal family may vary by country, but generally includes the spouse of the reigning monarch, any or all surviving spouses of a deceased monarch, and the children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, and cousins of the reigning monarch, as well as their spouses."

In past generations, European royals tended to marry other European royals, but in more recent generations, that's been less common. Consequently, while past monarchs tended to have uncles, aunts, and cousins on both the paternal and maternal sides of their families who were royal themselves, that's less common today and will even be less common in the future.

As an example of how this plays out, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom had four paternal uncles and one paternal aunt, all of whom have Wikipedia articles (see George V of the United Kingdom#Issue) as do all of their children. But on her mother's side, she had another three aunts and six uncles, not all of whom have Wikipedia articles, nor do many of their children (see Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne). In fact, one of Queen Elizabeth II's aunts, Violet Bowes-Lyon, had an article that was converted to a redirect pursuant to this AfD because there was virtually nothing that could be written about her. Yet this guideline would recommend that she have an article because she was an aunt of a reigning monarch.

I would recommend that "uncles, aunts, and cousins" be removed from the guideline. If the particular uncle, aunt, or cousin is royal, he or she would probably qualify as a child or grandchild of a reigning monarch pursuant to another part of the same sentence. If the person is not royal, he or she could qualify for an article by coming to the public attention per WP:BIO, but should not be presumed notable enough for an art::icle merely because a sibling married a monarch. --Metropolitan90 05:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for the input. Does anyone else have a problem with removing that clause? Kafziel ^Talk 13:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems okay, but what about great-grandchildren of reigning monarchs? We have articles on, for instance, Charles Armstrong-Jones, Margarita Armstrong-Jones, Samuel Chatto, Arthur Chatto, Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster, Lady Davina Lewis, Lady Rose Windsor, George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews, Lord Nicholas Windsor, Lady Helen Taylor, Lord Frederick Windsor, Lady Gabriella Windsor, James Ogilvy, Marina Ogilvy, David Lascelles, Viscount Lascelles, James Lascelles, Jeremy Lascelles, Henry Lascelles, James Carnegie, 3rd Duke of Fife, Alistair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, Alexander Ramsay of Mar, Lady May Abel Smith, Rupert Cambridge, Viscount Trematon, etc. etc. We also have numerous articles about great-great-grandchildren of monarchs - Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick, Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor, Lady Amelia Windsor, Columbus Taylor, Cassius Taylor, Eloise Taylor, Estella Taylor, Alexander Ogilvy, Flora Ogilvy, Christian Mowatt, Zenouska Mowatt, David Carnegie, Earl of Southesk, Lady Alexandra Etherington, Alexander Lascelles, Rowan Lascelles, Tewa Lascelles, Sophie Lascelles, Thomas Lascelles, Ellen Lascelles, Amy Lascelles...but some of these probably don't qualify under either wording. Another option would be to reword to note that only royal relatives of the monarch qualify under these rules. john k 21:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the only consensus on the definition of royal is a popular rule-of-thumb, i.e. someone who is addressed as "Royal Highness", to which I object as illogical and unpredictable. For example, Prince Michael of Kent is "royal" by this definition, yet he does not represent the Queen at public events and in official precedence ranks far below Lady Sarah Chatto, who is her niece. In fact, strictly, HRH Prince Michael has no precedence as a member of the royal family at all. In the Netherlands, Prince Johan-Friso of Orange-Nassau is an HRH, but is not in the order of succession to the Dutch throne, whereas Countess Eloise van Orange-Nassau is 5th in line as eldest child of the Queen's youngest son, yet Eloise is neither a princess nor an HRH. What garners these folk the press coverage that defines them as "notable" is not (primarily) their title, but their near kinship to the monarch. Unfortunately, titles are not a reliable indicator of propinquity anymore, whereas family relationship is. It is stated above that uncles, aunts and cousins may be omitted here because they "would probably qualify as a child or grandchild of a reigning monarch". But that is precisely what they (eventually) are not: Prince Michael of Kent is a grandson of a deceased monarch, and therefore wouldn't qualify as "notable" here for the same reason he lacks (official) precedence within the British royal family: it is reckoned in terms of relationship to the reigning monarch, not previous ones (of course, the prominence of the British royal family ensures Michael's notability anyway, but that wouldn't be true if he were a prince of a less renowned monarchy). For that reason, I do oppose elimination of the "uncle, nephew, and (first) cousin" clause. But I support modification of it, pursuant to the comments of Metropolitan90 above, by insertion of "dynastic" as a qualifier on the kinship. Thus, only blood relatives of the monarch on the dynastic side of the family should count toward Wiki notability. LLethiere 00:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Lethiere's comment raises a good point. Prince Michael of Kent is not currently covered by the guideline except to the extent that he is a cousin of reigning monarch Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Consequently, it seems reasonable to allow a provision for "uncles, aunts, and cousins on the dynastic side" of a reigning monarch. --Metropolitan90 04:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I had thought that Prince Michael does carry out official duties. He is certainly listed on the Royal website as a member of the royal family, unlike Lady Sarah or Lord Linley or the Earl of Harewood, or whoever. I was also not clear about the status of children of sisters of a monarch. My understanding was that traditionally it was only children of brothers of a monarch who got any special precedence automatically, and that cognatic descendants of a monarch got no special precedence at all. Did Gerald Lascelles really have higher precedence than the Duke of Connaught between 1936 and 1942, for instance? john k 06:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, however, that what we mean is "uncles, cousins, etc. on the dynastic side." john k 06:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So for the purposes of the guideline, can someone put that in layman's terms without spending a paragraph explaining what we mean? Kafziel ^Talk 12:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like its: Anyone who was, at one point, an official member of a ruling family of a country is considered notable. The definition of a royal family may vary by country, but generally includes the spouse of the reigning monarch, any or all surviving spouses of a deceased monarch, and the children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, brothers, sisters of a reigning or past monarch, as well as the spouses of a child, grandchild, brother or sister of a reigning monarch. Thesmothete 20:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)