Talk:Queen Anne-Marie of Greece

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Requested move 1.1 Discussion 1.2 Sockpuppets 1.3 Result 2 Move 3 Old talk 4 SHE is not a Queen of Greece 5 Collecting votes? This is not fair 6 Greek republican 7 Attempt at major upgrade 8 Please don't revert this discussion page to remove votes 9 Someone changes the titles POV 10 Just a reminder 11 NPOV 12 Titles of former and past sovereigns 13 "Moral Legitimacy" of the 1974 refenderum 14 Discussion of Naming Policy regarding the ex-King's grandchildren 15 On Consensus 16 Sockpuppets updated 17 Refereeing royal fisticuffs

[edit] Move

Aleksandar moved this page contrary to the Wiki practice of voting for a controversial move. How does one go about moving it back? Charles 22:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Technically, file a WP:RM and I'll get to it in five days; as there is no meta:wrong version, it should not matter where the article is until then. 'lright? —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 15:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

See "She is not Queen of Greece" (I totally disagree) for discussion, as Aleksandar has trouble posting things where they ought to be. Charles 18:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old talk

per Wiki convention re naming of queens consortMowens35 07:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The German and Dutch versions call her "of Denmark", but the English calls her "of Greece". Which is correct? - Nik42 09:32, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the German and Dutch versions have her filed under her maiden name, as opposed to Wiki principle re queens consort. Mowens35 07:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SHE is not a Queen of Greece

The same argument was about Consantine II. She is not a Queen because her husband is not a King. The point is that by calling him a 'King of Greece', or her Queen of Greece is to give him and her an official Hellenic title, and this act shows disregard for the Constitution of Greece. Also check [1]; you will see that there are no titles as, for instance, in some other countries (Sir, King, dukes, etc). He can be duke of a place in countries that support such titles (ex.UK, Denmark...), but he can't call him self duke of Sparta or duke of Myconos because there is no such thing as duke or King or Sir. It's not a matter of a republican moving the site, is a matter of whether she claims to have a title in a country that doesn't have titles. Stevepeterson 14:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There is precedent all across Wikipedia for people who were once royal in a certain place. They keep their titles. It is not giving thme official Hellenic titles. By courtesy, they are the King and Queen of Greece. The official titles are King and Queen of the Hellenes. Read Naming conventions (names and titles)#Monarchical titles, section 7. The treatment of Constantine warrants regular consort treatment for his wife, who is almost universally known as Queen Anne-Marie of Greece. The Greek constitution is irrelevant in this case. Greece is but one country. The rest of the world seems to refer to Constantine as King and his wife as Queen. Queen Anne-Marie claims titles of the Kingdom of the Hellenes, not of the Republic of Greece. Those are two different things. Charles 18:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

0I copy here the article of Constitution of Greece:

Part II Individual and Social Rights

Article 4 Citizenship and Equality

(1) All Greeks are equal before the law. (2) Greek men and Greek women have equal rights and obligations. (3) Greek citizens are those who possess the qualifications specified by the law. No one shall be deprived of his citizenship save in the case of persons assuming on their own free will another citizenship or joining a service in another country which is contrary to the national interests, in accordance with the conditions and procedure laid down by the law in detail. (4) Only Greek citizens shall be eligible for public service save in those cases where exceptions are introduced by specific legislation. (5) Greek citizens shall, without discrimination, contribute towards sharing the burden of public expenditure according to their ability. (6) Every Greek able to bear arms shall be obliged to assist in the defence of the nation, as provided by law. (7) Titles of nobility or distinction shall neither be conferred upon, nor recognized in Greek citizens. Stevepeterson 14:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The most common name is to be used. Former royals on Wikipedia are named under their titles unless they are otherwise known by another name. The Greek government can "not recognize" the title all they want. Ignoring it doesn't mean that it ceases to exist. Constantine bears it as a former head of state for life and as such, his wife is titled as Queen. Charles 18:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the Greek constitution says. The Greek Constitution doesn't get to decide how people are called. Tradition dictates that former monarchs retain their titles, and this is how Constantine and Anne-Marie are universally known throughout the world. There is no other reasonable place to put their articles. Nobody is trying to assert that Constantine is still the King of the Hellenes. He obviously is not, because Greece is now a republic. But he is still known as "King Constantine," and it would be a violation of NPOV for wikipedia to take the view of the Greek government that this is inappropriate. john k 19:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they can't be claimed to be called Kings or Queens of a place that has exiled them with a legal referendum. Its like Saddam calls himself Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq, wikipedia doesn't have such a title and the above link leads nowhere.

Also who said that they are called Kings and Queens? Officially nobody calles them like that and all articles about them call them former Kings, maybe Anne Maria or a friend of hers started this article on that name. Steliosmpikakis 22:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Royalty operates on a different basis than presidents. George W. Bush is titled as such for his article. Elected republican offices tend to not be affixed to the end of the name. Charles 22:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly and since using titles in Greek citizens is viewed as missrespect of the articles of the curent Constitution of Greece regarding equal rights between Greek citizens and also because those people are in exile, no title should be used supposing that they are bellow or beyond all Greek citizens. Steliosmpikakis 22:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

How can you possibly apply Greek rules to the royal family when the same system wouldn't give them passports to allow them to pass within the country as Greeks? The say of the Greek constitution is absolutely and totally irrelvant here. It doesn't govern Wikipedia and it doesn't govern anything outside of Greece. Charles 22:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You can surely apply Greek rules to people claiming being Kings of Greeks. Saddam and his followers can claim being president of Iraq but his title is lost after the abolition of his dictatory and the new constitution of Itaq. Those people can stick to Danish titles, but can't use Greek ones. ALEKSANDAR 23:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. This kind of thing is so tiresome. As previously explained, royal titles aren't the same as republican ones. Traditionally, former monarchs retain their titles as a means of formal address, and there's nothing the Greek constitution can do to change that. john k 23:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I keep hearing all this "tradition" talk. WHOSE tradition may I ask? The UK tradition? The Danish tradition? Certainly NOT the Greek tradition. Are we dealing with systemic bias here or what? Oh, and somehting else: A king is made a king by his people. If the people decide not to have a king, a king he is no more. Have you people ever heard of the Social contract, or are kings and queens more important than the Enlightenment? --Michalis Famelis 00:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You are ridiculous. I had made a long list of abdicated or deposed monarchs who continued to be called "King X" after their abdication, but I realized there was no point in trying to make arguments with someone who thinks that it is somehow anti-enlightenment and in favor of the divine right of kings to say that the former King of Greece, who is still known as "King Constantine" should be referred to by the name by which he is best known. You make a fool of yourself when you leap to such utterly ridiculous conclusions based on so little evidence. john k 07:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, it's not a UK tradition (Edward VIII, the only notable abdicated UK monarch in recent memory, did not retain his title), but it is a general tradition that, absent some other arrangement, a former monarch still gets to retain the style of King. Since republics, as a rule, tend to not make any other arrangements for their former monarchs, such folks generally get to keep their old styles. The basic point is this: obviously, it is up to the people of a country to decide whether they want to have a king or not. But once that's done, it's up to the erstwhile king to decide what he wants to be called. And one of the options that erstwhile kings traditionally have is to retain their royal style. But I suppose all this just shows my adherence to the Basilikon Doron. john k 07:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems that we are trapped in an article were 2-3 friends of Anne MAria and Kokos (or maybe Kokos himself with his acount in wiukipedia) are trying to style a title that they lost 30 years ago. What would had happened if the referendum was only for exiling you two then install a proper King and Queen (not a stupid Koko that destroyed the country and is responsible for a dictatory)? Would there be 2 Kings of Greece and 2 Queens of Greece? Anyway, I feel insulted, they called me Greek republican to humilate me, a no-brainer and called who ever votes against their planned move, a ridiculus. ALEKSANDAR 10:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You've only humiliated yourself. Charles 18:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'm Constantine II, you've found me out. It's always good to accuse people who disagree with you of holding opinions they don't actually hold. It's a highly effective debating technique. john k 17:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

First its Alexander accusing Charles of being Kokos, then Charles accuses Alexander of being Cocos. What's going on here? Are you trying to pull masks that don't exist? Or is it just the difference between Cocos and Kokos that matters. Greeks use "K" while latin counties prefer "C", hence the difference between "Constantine de Grecia" and "Konstantinos of Hellens". I suggest we should vote if we prefer Cocos or Kokos. Cocos 10:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What abvout your "you are ridiculus" debating technique my sweet John Kenney? 87.74.70.150 21:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how else to refer to someone who believes that one's position on how to title an article about the former Queen of Greece gives insight into one's views on the Enlightenment. It is perhaps not the most effective debating technique, but I stand by my statement nevertheless. Michalis is ridiculous, and will continue to be ridiculous as long as he makes ridiculous statements like that. john k 19:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I will not care to take this as a personal attack. I will only ask of you to re-read rules on civility. You may believe that my thoughts shared above are ridiculous as much as you please but making ad hominem remarks undermines both the quality of your arguments and the level of this discussion. Please think it over. --Michalis Famelis 08:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collecting votes? This is not fair

quoting from Jtdirl's talk page, Charles is collecting votes from random people! Hi Jtdirl, could you please contribute a vote at Talk:Anne-Marie of Greece? Thanks. Charles 18:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Noel, could you please contribute a vote at Talk:Anne-Marie of Greece? Thanks. Charles 19:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Deb, could you check out Talk:Anne-Marie of Greece and contribute a vote? Thanks. Charles 22:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Above posted by Arnegjor, suggesting that this voting is not fair, as people who voted got the mesage just some seconds before their vote. ALEKSANDAR 13:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If YOU edit my comments one more time, I'm putting you up on the board the for administrators to deal with. Here is the comment that you erased. "Above posted by Arnegjor. For what reason, I do not know. Charles 00:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)" Charles 18:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This is my defence ;) Charles 22:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with one editor notifying other editors that a vote is going on. As it happens, Charles and I have disagreed about the names of a number of pages for other royals. But he knows that I take an interest in such matters and that I can also make (I think) a useful contribution. Noel S McFerran 07:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

but anyweay there was a real referendum about her title and 70% of Greeks voted her loss of title, its not a corrupted referendum in wikipedia that will give it back to her Arnegjor 22:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Rather than destroying the continuity of a page, keep your trash at the bottom, not in the middle of the request move section. It's rude, un-Wiki and probably in violation of some rules. Notifying people of votes is common place. Sometimes they vote against how I vote. That's their choice. Charles 22:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about?? they voted some seconds after you invited them. Arnegjor 22:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Duh. Notifications of new messages are instant. Cease disrupting the votes. It contravenes Wiki rules. Charles 22:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

then stop blackmailing me. Since I started discovering how corrupted your votes are, you send me messages trying to scare me that you will ban me from editting (voting and protecting form your votes) wikipedia. Are you administrator? Cause if you are I'm quiting wikipedia right now. Arnegjor 23:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't sent you an email in my entire life. You have a history of disruption and infractions contrary to Wiki guidelines. Charles 23:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I never did any personal attack, you and your collected voters did calling Alexander a "Greek republican" and "no-brainer", why didn't you send a message there? You can ban me darling there's no reason in wasting my time dealing with such situations. And wikipedia is not a good source of information if it contains artticles about the Queen of Greece (while there's no such thing) and people collect random voters to prove that, in referendums trying to replace legal ones that took place 30 years ago and 10 mil people voted. Bye bye and good luck with your queens of greece and dukes of Myconos, of Macedonia and of the mountains of Crete. Arnegjor 23:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greek republican

It was me who moved the article and I wonder why they call me republican? I'm a Greek roaylist and very upset with Constantine II and Anne Maria for all bads they did to my country and my people and for being the reason with their decisions that Greece doesn't have a crown any more. Thousand of people were tortured and this is the reason that only 30% voted in favour of Monarchy, of which most were against the couple but in favour of the Royal system. They don't have any title so please leave the site as "of Greece" rather than Queen. ALEKSANDAR 23:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What is she "of Greece"? Charles 23:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Because "of Greece" is not a formal title and is compatible with her husband's article. How can she be Queen of Greece, where he husband is Constantine II of Greece? Is she so selfish that she doesn't want to share her title with her husband? Go change her husband's article before hers, cause if she was a Queen it would be because of Constantine's title. ALEKSANDAR 23:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia practice dictates: Former sovereigns and sovereigns are at "Name of Territory". Their consorts are at "Title Name of Territory". Charles 23:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This "title" part she doesn't have as teh referendum of 1973 removed it. Wikipedia should respect what those people voted for Stevepeterson 23:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia practice is not governed by or kneels for the Greek constitution or any related referendum. There is a practice for living sovereigns, whether current or former, and their is a practice for the wives of such sovereigns. Charles 23:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if we forget the issue of giving a formal title to an exiled former Queen, but just google to see what i scommonly used in English language:

Anne-Marie Former Queen of Greece: 56.200 results

Queen Anne-Marie of Greece: 67.300 results

Anne-Marie of Greece: 262.000 results

I suggest that we move the title to Anne-Marie Former Queen of Greece, as it really expresses her current status. ALEKSANDAR 14:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Queen Anne-Marie of Greece" -wikipedia gives 859 results. *"Anne-Marie of Greece" -wikipedia gives 869. Only 10 don't use the title of queen. Charles 18:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Even in this case, most of the results are because of the Queen Anne-Marie of Greece article that you want to revert

No, they aren't. The minus Wikipedia removes all the results from mirrors, etc. Charles 21:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It hasnºt done it yet and also even in her husbandºs site the link is Anne-Marie relinking to the previous site Queen Anne-Marie of Greece. Having to relink "Anne MArie" to "Queen Anne Marie of Greece" shows the need to keep the name of the site. 87.74.70.150 21:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone changed that link becuase someone else foolishly moved this page. Charles 23:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You can check that nobody has changed them for many months, don't try to fool us ALEKSANDAR 03:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt at major upgrade

I have added a significant amount of material to the article - which had very little about Anne-Marie herself. I have tried very hard to present the various viewpoints about titles in a neutral fashion. Noel S McFerran 22:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I checked it out and so far it looks pretty good. Charles 23:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha , so prety good that went NPOV...

Anyway i think its a bad idea to edit the article whilst people can still vote. It's useless, all edits will just try to drag more votes to both sides; like the titles part that has no references and is missleading, or other edits against her. Lets leave it as it is and improve it after the vote has finished ALEKSANDAR 20:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't revert this discussion page to remove votes

Today I was trying to vote and had someone reverting my vote, spent 20' to add a vote Svetlyo 06:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely and completely not allowed to edit or remove the reason for the request vote. Count yourself up for investigation. Charles 06:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You claim that I remove the "revert to a previous name that a Greek republican (POV, even him claimed being Royalist) changed and you ought to support us..." thats for the discussion not for the top of a vote. By using this as an excuse you removed my edits and my vote and had to write three times and try to revert to save my vote. Svetlyo 06:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Your votes are re-included but you have no right to change the reason I added for the request move. Leave it alone. Charles 06:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason is already on top. Its no a reason of Alexander being a Greek republican, first we don't know and don't know and don't care about his political identity and second you mentioned once more above and third you clearly try to predjudge the vote before teh discussion, we don't need your opinion there, thats why we have the discussion Svetlyo 06:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If people are as fragile and unstable as you make them out to be, they ought to not be on Wikipedia at all. ou didn't have a problem voting in opposition, did you? Charles 06:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You know so litle about fair polls and democracy and hence your fanatism about the word Queen. Svetlyo 06:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted to the user that on Wikipedia, votes are still not binding. Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Votes are an advisement when no consensus is reached. TKE 10:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Someone changes the titles POV

I have to add the POV. there's no way that an article can remain having that a court gave her teh title of Queen of Greece. Is it in Greece? And if its not how can a court outside a country give a title that refers to a foreign country. Can somalia give teh title of Queen of the USA to a random person?

Also after that is says as a title given in Greece (??) "Anne-MArie de Grecia" thats not a title and its against this move here , as it suggests that her current title is "Anne-Marie of Greece" hence teh article should remain as it is. Why those who added this fake title support the move to a different title then? Svetlyo 06:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The point of an encyclopedia article is to gather the various things which have been said about a topic in scholarly sources. It is a fact that Anne-Marie uses the surname "de Grecia" on occasion. It is also a fact that various royal courts refer to her as "Queen Anne-Marie of Greece". No editor has to agree that these things are right or appropriate. An encyclopedia article is about recording what happens, not judging whether it should happen. If the government of Somalia ever gives the title "Queen of the USA" to somebody, then that should be recorded in Wikipedia. Noel S McFerran 09:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is about formal titles as it is in the category of Kings and Queens. So if the title is given here, it has to be valid, its not just a name. Also in English language you will find more resources as it is now than to the name that you want to move it to (check above). So I can't find aboslutely any point that this article has to move apart from all us fighting like cocks and driven by our egoism. The whole problem started from the description of the move attempt including the POV and propagandistic "a greek republican heared voices and his feelings" that turned the whole stupid thing an argument between Royalists-Republicans. Stevepeterson 10:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a reminder

Play nice! Stop reverting each other and grind it out on the talk page. There's nothing that can't wait a couple days while it gets worked out! Rx StrangeLove 06:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I had to add a NPOV, as it is very sesnitive period and the article changes from hour to hour, from depicting her as an exiled person to having titles such as Queen of Greece, while above the title is mentioned not having any teritorial identification. Also the current title is "de Grecia", in which country do people get the title "de Grecia" and what does it mean? Is it an academic title (Professor) or royal, equivalant to Queen. Is it a title or a surname? Because above the article mentions it as a surname used for their passport. Stevepeterson 07:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a personal title used to identify Anne-Marie. As you can see from various footnotes on the page, it is in use. Charles 07:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does it have the (Greece), is it given in Greece? Also if this is her current title why don't we move the article to Anne-Marie de Grecia then? Stevepeterson 07:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The use of de Grecia is just a matter of note only because it's the only way she can enter Greece. It still means "of Greece", just in another language. One could call her Anne-Marie de Grèce, Anne-Marie von Griechenland, etc. They all mean the same thing. Charles 07:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

So this is their international name, used in their passport and not a title given in Greece in 2003, as the article indicates. And if "One could call her Anne-Marie de Grèce, Anne-Marie von Griechenland, etc" why do we need to move the article to another name? Isn't "Anne-Marie of Greece" enough? Stevepeterson 08:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I was stating that they all mean the same thing. You brought up the "de Grecia" thing, I was only pointing out that it simply means "of Greece". So a move to there would be controversial as it would still mean "Anne-Marie of Greece". Also, please affix the appropriate number of colons to the beginning of your posts to preserve the page layout. Charles 08:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't me who brought up the de grecia thing, its the new edits that claim that "de Grecia" is their current title, given by Greece. So I asked what kind of title is that and if we can suggest is as the current title for article? Stevepeterson 09:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"de Grecia" is the name used by Anne-Marie and her family when they travel in Greece. There is nothing in the webpage which says that this is a title "given by Greece". I have added the word "used" to make this more clear. Noel S McFerran 09:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

They were both under the paragrapg titles. Now somebody changed it to Titles and Styles:

# 1973 - present (used outside of Greece and by courtesy), Her Majesty Queen Anne-Marie of Greece (or the Hellenes)

# 2003 - present (used in Greece) Anna-Maria de Grecia

de Grecia is not a title and neither a style. Its her name as it appears on her passport, the same way Peterson is not my title or style, its my second name as it appears on my passport, so lets don't misslead people that Greece gave them a title, they didn't even give them permission to enter the country; the couple made the passport in another country of EU and used the Schengen plan to be able to pass the borders. Also I need more references about the "Her Majesty Queen Anne-Marie of Greece (or the Hellenes)" title given to her by courtesy. Which court gave her the title and where? Is it in Greece, or in another country? The article intentionally doesn't mention because thats is impossibke. International laws dictate that a title such as "of the UK" can only be given by the same country. Can Turkey for example give (aster 1821) an official title to a turkish citizen, such as Sultan Mustaffa of Greece?

Those who editted this titles can please provide some official information about this court? Stevepeterson 10:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The article CLEARLY says that COURTESY gives the title of queen to Anne-Marie. It makes it very clear that it is not recognized within Greece. Why do you need references? Are you the authority on who is allowed to call themselves what? I don't think so. Noel has provided more references than all this other drivel has. The fervent denial of Anne-Marie's title only gives it legitimacy. People know it exists. Charles 18:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be more correct if you could give some informartion about those courts, as for example where and when were they held and what is teh exact title they gave. Because indeed it sounds very weird that any court outside Greece can give her a title that regards Greece. It would be a major deplomacy conflict between Denmark and Greece, both countries of the EU ALEKSANDAR 00:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday I added footnotes citing official webpages of these courts and showing the exact usage at each of them. Noel S McFerran 00:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, there have been minor conflicts. That proves that everyone does not agree with the successive Greek government's treatment of the royal family. Precedent allows former royals and subsequent members of their houses to retain the use of titles. The Greek government has done the only thing it can on the matter: to not recognize the titles. Charles 00:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If I'm allowed a tiny bit of ranting and paraphrasing, the treatment by the Greek government of the ex-royals proves that hardly anyone in Greece agrees with the ex-Royal Family's treatment of the Greek People. History allows Peoples tell their Kings to split. The ex Royal Family has done the only thing it can on the matter: to cling on its titles and pretend they are still dynasts.

Anyway, apart from being a smartass, I want to ask if there is really a reason to have the POV tag. Are there any POV disputes left? --Michalis Famelis 01:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"The neutrality of this article is disputed" tag was only added 17 hours ago by Stevepeterson. There have been some changes since then, but I'm not sure that has changed his opinion that the page is "clearly POV". I don't agree with that charge, but it only takes one editor to add the POV tag. Noel S McFerran 01:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV statement can't be removed until the titles are not stated accurately. I checked all references that you provided and I found no evidence of a court giving her the title "Her Majesty Anne-Marrie Queen of Greece (or of the Hellens)" as you have stated in the article. This is inaccurate and missleading, as only a Greek court can give her such a title, which would be against teh country's constitution (no titles) and "Observance of the Constitution shall be committed to the patriotism of the Greeks" (section IV, article 120). Also "de Grecia" is just their surname as it appears on their passport, not a title given in Greece as the article states. Whoever tries to correct the title falls into vandalising reverts. Svetlyo 14:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the POV tag, and added a small footnote that makes clear that "Anna-Maria de Grecia" is not used as a title but as a name. --Michalis Famelis 17:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Titles of former and past sovereigns

I know nothing about the subject, which is why I can honestly say that it is important to say Queen if she was a recognized rule by international standard, not if it's a lost by revolution and reform. I don't recognize a King of France, do you?TKE 06:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

TKE, we refer to Louis XVI of France and Queen Marie-Antoinette, not Louis and Marie-Antoinette Capet. Charles 06:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I meant a current King of France; I thought that was understood in my comment, I apologize for the confusion. I'm duplicating my comment at the bottom with a clarification, because I don't want it to get lost in this clutter of tabs. TKE 06:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That is the thing though, there is none. And when Constantine II dies, there will be no King of Greece. Charles 07:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's my case in that regards. In the english wiki, we're going by popular English conventions. By historical relation, we call Queen Elizabeth by the title just by nature. People may popularly know a few other nordic countries kings, and perhaps that Spain has a King. The Prince of Monoco is a known title too. But few know that Greece has king, which is neat information. But for common knowledge it's there with Luxembourg being a duchy and Leichtenstein being a principality. Now I'm all for having people know that Greece has a king, but historical record shows that a queen must be recognized by the governing body. It's why England has only had one co-rule under William and Mary; they both had claim to the throne and happened to be married. Queen Victoria never make Prince Albert king, because he was not in a line close to the throne. Irrelevent, but I was pondering, it is common to refer to the Capets, Plantagenets, Hapsburgs, et al. in historical discussion, but now I'm rambling. TKE 07:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note I'm not voting, just offering a NPOV. TKE 07:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Austria didn't recognize Karl I as their Emperor for the last two years of his life, but he is titled so. When a monarchy ends, the titles freeze. A crown prince doesn't become a king, no one after him becomes crown prince. That is the practice among deposed royals. However, the titles are retained for life and precedent shows that former monarchs do use them and most often than not are accorded those titles by courtesy. And yes, reference to those names is common when referring to royal houses, but not as Louis Capet or Karl Habsburg, etc. Charles 07:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, prior to the unification of France after the Hundred Years' War, The kings are denoted by their houses to display contrast to their rivals, i.e. Capet vs. Bourbon. TKE 07:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That may be so, however, we don't refer to them as Louis Capet, Louis Bourbon etc. Notes within the articles indicate the house names, because those are of interest, but for the purposes of WP they are not used as article titles. Charles 07:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

We're getting far over on the page. Anyway I know that, I made my original point and stand by it as far as the article is concerned. Like I said I'm nitpicking because of the good talk. We're cluttering up the page, so let's agree to disagree on the move :) TKE 07:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm nitpicking because it's fun to talk to someone who know's what they're talking about :) TKE

"Which Plantagenet do I remind you of most?" President Bartlet. A little levity. Anyway, I understand the point but I cannot find a reference for a legitimate formal claim to a Queen of Greece, that's all. This is an interesting debate, good discussion with you. Like I said I'm not voting, I was looking for a clear argument here and you provided one. TKE 07:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

So if Greeks had installed another King after Constantine's exile, there would be two guys with the title King of Greece, is that what you mean Charles? Stevepeterson 08:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly correct. Consider 1863 to 1867: King Otto of Greece lived in Bavaria after his deposition, while King George I of Greece lived in Athens where he actually reigned. Otto continued to be addressed as Your Majesty and when he died was buried with the title King of Greece. Now obviously only one of these men was THE (i.e. reigning) King of Greece at the time. But that didn't stop the other one from continuing to have the style and title. Noel S McFerran 09:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I swear to Dog, there's no such thing as useless trivia, a perfect example. TKE 10:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

King Otto styled "Your Majesty Otto" without the "of Greece", while somebody else styled as "King of Greece". When he was burried his title was "King Otto of Greece" with the period of his monarchy after and in parenthesis. Stevepeterson 10:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, I'm assuming from the discussion between Charles and myself and the interest shown here that this is for the fun and trivial, not related to the move.

Now, what he styled himself is of less importance than historical record. The different nomenclatures leading up to "Mr. President" do not matter to how the article is styled. For encyclopedic value, I like to consider how this would read if it were a hundred years from now. Self-references with time meet up with criteria; I don't think anyone would call Tamir "Tamirlane" and live to tell about it.TKE 11:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Moral Legitimacy" of the 1974 refenderum

Earlier I removed the phrase from the "Official status since 1973" section that reads:

Some people have questioned the moral legitimacy of the referendum since the Royal Family were not permitted to return to Greece to campaign there.

I said I would remove it again in the future unless a citation was given to substanciate the aformentioned "some people". A ciatition was indeed promplty provided: a link to a Vanity Fair article.

But there seems to be a problem here. I couldn't find anywhere in the cited article any mention of question of the moral legitimacy of the refenderum on the grounds that the former royal family had no chance to campaign. The only mention I could find regarding the refenderum is this:

After the colonels fell in 1974, the return of the monarchy was rejected by a 69 percent majority in a referendum the legitimacy of which he (Constantine) has always questioned.

This does not imply that there is any kind of moral question regarding the refenderum, and neither does it say anything about the former royal family not being able to campaign. It just says that the ex-King questions the legitimacy of the refenderum that abolished the monarchy. It also does not say why he thinks so (he could well say that out of personal bitterness).

According to the above, and in good faith, I ask once again either for a proper citation, or for a correction if I have missed out an important part of the cited article. If no such a citation can be provided, I must ask that the phrase be removed once again. --Michalis Famelis 17:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I do think it a bit much to insist upon citations in an article where there were none until I added a few several days ago. The legitimacy of the referendum has been questioned. If Mr Famelis thinks that the word "moral" should be removed, then I have no objection to that. I thought that the addition of the word "moral" softened the text by not questioning the legal validity of the referendum. As regards the reasons for questing the moral validity: see Constantine's biography on his website where it says "The King was not allowed to return to Greece to campaign (and did not have an official party to represent him)".[2]

I think it only reasonable to have some sort of statement which explains the context of the referendum. It is not as though each side was able to present its case to the voters. The government presented its case, and refused permission for Constantine even to enter the country to present his case. I am certainly open to other suggestions for an NPOV way of conveying this information. Noel S McFerran 19:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not mean to sound offencive to you, particularly in regard to the extensive work that you have done in improving this article. Your work is surely the least to say exceptional and commendable, and I sincerely thank you for that as a fellow wikipedian.

That said, I object to the argument that the legitimacy of the referendum is disputed. No Greek political party disputes the 1974 referendum. No Greek political party disputes the Greek Constitution that was written in accordance to the referendum. No Greek political party has ever tried to reverse the 1974 constitution, on the grounds of it being illegitimate. At least no party with more than a few hundred supporters. No international organisation has questioned the refenderum. Up to now all you have presented as questioning the refenderum is the opinion of Constantine and according to WP:NPOV minority opinions should be presented as such. Thank you for the link to the royal family's site. I will use that to try and reword the phrase to reflect the fact that this view is actually held by the former royal family itself, not by the general public. --Michalis Famelis 19:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No Greek can question the referendum and the Constitution of Greece, thats also part of the constitution (Section IV, Article 120). The Greek governemnts (both conservative, centrists) treated Glyckboorgs very softly. Those people sweared and openly supported the Military Dicatorship who killed and tortured thousands. In my opinion Constantine was lucky not having to face the same court that the dictators faced after the restoration of democracy; he would be in jail now. Instead Greeks, left him live in peace in London and the whole story about giving his property to the public started when he refused to pay taxes, hence refused the ownership of the property in Greece. Svetlyo 15:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we say, instead of that "some people" think the referendum was invalid, that Constantine and the royal family do? We might add "some Greek monarchists," if there are any (if there are, they haven't made much of an appearance on wikipedia.) john k 15:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

JohnK, that is exactly what the article says right now, after I edited it yesterday. --Michalis Famelis 16:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How about simplifying things even further: remove the phrase "have questioned the moral legitimacy of the referendum on the grounds that they" leaving the sentence "The former Royal Family were not permitted to return to Greece to campaign there"? Noel S McFerran 17:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that can be better than the current wording. In fact I meant to ask, what is our source for reporting that they were not allowed to enter the country to campaign? Using Google, I couldn't find any mention of an official prohibition issued by then PM Constantine Karamanlis. Sources are supposed to be impartial, and the neutrality of the former's website can be questioned by a suspicious reader. --Michalis Famelis 23:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

John, Greek Monarchists (like myself) are in favour of the monarchical system and against the couple that so many bad things did to the country and accuse the couple for the loss of the Crown system. Also Constantine recently exposed all Monarchists by saysing in an interview that all bad he did was because he was very young and not very matture when he got the title. This means that instead of taking the responsibility for his mistakes he accuse the monarchical system for giving power to a young and immature. ALEKSANDAR 21:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Naming Policy regarding the ex-King's grandchildren

I have raised the subject of how the articles about the ex-King's and ex-Queen's grandchildren (those born after 1974) should by titled. Please share your opinions here. --Michalis Famelis 18:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Consensus

The article is 7/10 against the move, the consensus is not clear. I contributed to a jumble at the bottom, but it's resonable discussion. I think the vote should delayed possibly a new page created for the next vote so to limit the clutter and make a clear concensus. TKE 05:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Not so.

1. The page was used contrary to WP rules by cut and paste. The user responsible is lucky not have been blocked from Wikipedia for doing that. Others have been for doing so. If he ever does it again on any page on Wikipedia he will be banned on sight. It is a bannable offence. Cutting and pasting articles destroy the archives and history of a page and is seen as vandalism.
2. It was unilaterally moved without a vote to a form that is contrary to WP rules.
3. A number of the oppose votes are clearly sockpuppets, probably of the original mover. Bergerac has a grant total of two edits, his user page and here. Under WP rules he is as a result disqualified from voting here.
4. The new name is factually inaccurate, as it means that Anne-Marie was a queen-regnant. She never was. She was a queen consort, so under WP policy she has to be named in the form used on WP for queens consort, not queens-regnant. As a result leaving the page at an incorrect name is not an option. As is made quite clear, WP is not a democracy and does not decide between right and wrong in terms of facts by voting.

The onus is on those seeking to justify a move contrary to WP precedent and rules to show a decisive majority for that move. There is no such consensus. Therefore under WP rules it goes to the location required by WP rules, which is Queen Anne-Marie of Greece. Wikipedia does not operate under the rule that someone can unilaterally move a page contrary to WP policy and then force people seeking to restore policy to get a majority. Wikipedia votes on alternative versions of correct names, not between correct and incorrect versions. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• I understand that voting is not related to concensus. My view was that the votes didn't even provide relevent information in their descriptions for justification and clearing up arguments. I oppose the move as she is not a regnant, but most of the votes are sockpuppets as you said and it would be nice to stay the move, let things settle and have hopefully a rational round of votes, that's all. TKE 04:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• I do agree with and abide by the final decision as well. TKE 05:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

LEave here and move to other things? Its easy for you and me but not for my friends, their vote here costed their accounts. This argument reminded me Greek politics of 1960's, still no result, while some voters died and the adminstrators in favour of the Royalists. Stevepeterson 14:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets updated

Apart from Cocos and jtcd none else is a sockpuppet. I can tell that as being blocked user Svetlyo and I can assure you that I'm definetly not a sock of Stevepeterson. How can they use IPs to prove sockpuppetry when most of the world uses dynamic IPs (if we were sockpuppets we would just reconnect our modems) and users might share the same IP some times, when friends for example have to use the same computer at homes and libraries. Svetlyo from 213.16.187.227 10:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no sockpupets, they only sockpupets I can say that know are Aleksander's Cocos and jtcd (that I personaly never aproved). Please unblock Svetlyo, Arnejo and Aleksander and stop accusing wikiusers so easily; users sharing at some point the same IP is not a proven way to discover sockpupetry. Not everybody has dynamic ip, also I have set for Svetlyo and Aleksander user accounts on my Linux box and may use sometimes when visiting my house, this doesn't mean that they are not allowed to visit wikipedia (I don't think they voted from my house). I find the whole story useless, as the votal doesn't make any difference. Stevepeterson 15:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I smell a little BS ;-) Charles 18:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Goodness Charles, are you saying that you don't believe them... (heavy sarcasm...). This is one of the most contentious votes that I personally have ever seen. Accusations flying back and forth. Why can't users stick to the facts, and the WP:NC and leave the personal feelings out of it. It shouldn't matter where someone is from or what his/her politcal beliefs are on wiki, but somehow, it always becomes a point of conflict. Prsgoddess187 19:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I'm definetly not a sockpuppet of Stevepeterson and neither are most of them apart from (I think) cocos and jtcd. He just used my pc to do one or two edits. SVETLYO

What part of do not modify don't you understand. Do NOT add in information to the archive of the vote after it has been archived. That is against WP rules.

Stevepeterson (236 edits), ALEKSANDAR (47 edits), Arnegjor (82 edits), Steliosmpikakis (12 edits), Svetlyo (136 edits). This is ridiculus, sockpupets of 136 edits nearly as high as mine, that mean sthat according to the sockpupetry claims I have a total of 513 edits and only half of them are made by my account. And just because you want to have their vote invalid, you block for ever a user of 136 edits as sockpupet. Stevepeterson 11:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Claims of sockpuppettry aside, note that even with those votes there was no clear concensus. The arguments were weakly portrayed overall (there are exceptions) for the reasons to move. Therefore, the article was reverted back to "Queen."" This is a POV argument for both sides as a whole, both sides have nitpicks. Leave here and let's move on to other things! T K E 06:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has set policies on naming in the Manual of Style and Naming Conventions. It takes a consensus to break the MoS and NCs (though there is a move to make them obligatory. A professional encyclopaedia has to follow the one style, not make up different versions on different pages). No consensus existed to break the NC. (Far from it. Most of those championing it were sockpuppets of the same user, or 'friends' of him brought on to WP to push his agenda.) In the absence of a consensus to break a naming convention, pages are automatically required to follow the rules. In this case it meant that the page automatically went back to the NC version, which uses the word Queen. It is standard all over Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refereeing royal fisticuffs

I disagree with recent deletion of Anne-Marie's role in the scandal of the Italian pretenders as "trivia". The physical intervention of a former queen consort of Greece (sister of the reigning Queen of Denmark) in a brawl between the former crown prince of Italy and his rival pretender/cousin the Duke of Aosta (who is also her cousin), both leaders of increasingly vying Italian monarchist factions, at a state function at the palace of the King of Spain (her brother-in-law) is unique in recent royal history (surely someone has seen a photo?). It's also somewhat relevant to the development of the Italian monarchist movement because it was reported that the crown prince struck out in mistaken self-defense (not, alas, for the first time!) just as he was being hailed physically, but in a cousinly manner, by his rival, the Duke of Aosta -- possibly "cutting off at the pass" a dialogue leading to political truce. Had there been no intervention and the fight continued, press reports and the prospect of monarchist reconciliation in Italy would certainly have been much worse. As such, the fracas was genuinely newsworthy, not merely notorious. Certainly it is of no less public interest than countless details included in other Wiki biographies of living celebrities (Nor can I buy the monarchist conceit that royalty is, or is supposed to be, above "mere" celebrity treatment. In current and past constitutional monarchies, they are celebrities par excellence: what they do is of interest to the public simply because they are the ones doing it. Since Wikipedia includes entries on celebrities qua celebrity, it can be selective about, but should not altogether exclude, those of their non-royalist activities that might interest the public). If exiled queens consort are to have Wiki entries, the newsworthy events of their lives merit mention therein. Although Anne-Marie happened to be able and willing to intervene in the fight, she didn't just happen to be present: she was on the steps of Zarzuela Palace and proximate to the Italian crown prince at that moment because of her royal affiliations.

However, I agree with the deletion for different reasons: because the information (though widely-reported) as presented is not sourced, not written so as to distinguish fact from sensationalist speculation, and needs to be fleshed out. I hope that happens. Lethiere 22:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the material and justified the deletion with the word "trivia". Here is the wording added by User:Faroukfarouk:

On May 21, 2004 Anne-Marie was peripherally involved in a fight in Madrid between former Crown Prince Vittorio Emanuele and his cousin and rival Prince Amedeo. At an event at the Zarzuela Palace preceeding the marriage of Spanish Crown Prince Felipe, Vittorio Emanuele is said to have hit Amedeo twice on the face and with such force that he lost his balance, and apart from the quick intervention of Anne-Marie, who kept him upright, would have fallen to the ground. While an Egyptian dignitary was said to have administered first aid indoors (the altercation occurred on the outdoor steps of the Zarzuela), Anne-Marie and the other guests unitedly excercised a strict royal discretion regarding the embarrassing incident, which, however, was said to have left Spanish King Juan Carlos with the distinct impression that his hospitality had been abused by Vittorio Emanuele. Anne-Marie's quick action, nevertheless, had avoided what might have been more serious injuries to Amedeo.

This story has not so far been considered important enough to add to the article on the Duke of Aosta. The incident is mentioned on the page about Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples - but at less length - and less sensationally.

Anne-Marie had virtually nothing to do with this incident - she "was peripherally involved" and "kept him upright". Does anybody really think that the editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica would add such an incident to the article about Anne-Marie if they had one?

There are frequent news stories which list Anne-Marie as being present at royal events and engaging with other royals. An encyclopedia article doesn't list all of these minor "news" stories. Noel S McFerran 10:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)