Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Contents

[edit] Gaelic Irish rulers

I'm guessing that the article doesn't mention Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) by accident. As List of High Kings of Ireland and all other Irish kings articles show, absolutely no Irish monarchs are named in accordance with the guidelines here. Moving Toirdhealbhach Ua Briain to Turlough I of Ireland, or Domhnall MacLochlainn to Donald IV of Ireland, while apparently in line with these guidelines, might well be controversial. I presume that there's no objection to mentioning that here. If I'm wrong, speak up. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be the natural consequence of following wiki guidelines. As usual, the busy-bodies haven't given that the slightest thought. Isn't it strange also that Irish Gaelic rulers have to have native names, but Scottish Gaelic rulers have to have English names? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It would depend upon actual usage in English, and I'm not sure what it is for Toirdhealbhach Ua Briain. (I strongly suspect the same analysis would apply; but let me use an example I know.) Calling Niall of the Nine Hostages Neil I would be surprising to unrecognizable, so this guideline would indicate leaving him where he is under Exception 4, not moving him to Neil I of Ireland. I observe that neither that or Neil I exist even as redirects. Septentrionalis 17:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, don't stop at Neil, go straight for Nigel like they do with some Scottish Nialls. Nigel of Ireland would be worth a laugh. Toirdhealbhach Ua Briain 537 is referred to in English as Turlough O'Brien 6,130 or even sometimes Turloch O'Brien 554. But as I think little of the "guideline" these days (surely anyone knowledgable to type it in directly is going to be more familiar with the proper name?), I'm not going to be suggesting a move. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I would type Turlough O'Brien; I can spell that :-} Septentrionalis 02:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link to the Ireland article; in the process, I note that they do things much the same way; the first two points under Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)#Correct_Irish_orthography_in_naming_people are:

  1. If someone used the Irish version of his or her name, and this enjoyed and enjoys widespread usage among Irish and English speakers, this should be reflected in Wikipedia. Thus, we refer to Máirtín Ó Cadhain, not "Martin Kyne"; Tomás Ó Fiaich, not "Thomas Fee", etc.
  2. In cases where someone used the Irish version of his or her name but this does not enjoy widespread usage, then use the English version when naming the article but refer to the Irish version of the name in the first line. For example, Geoffrey Keating was Irish-speaking and probably never used that name himself. He is listed under Geoffrey Keating but the first sentence reads "Seathrún Céitinn, known in English as Geoffrey Keating, was ...".

This is much the same principle: is Kenneth MacAlpin, Cináed mac Ailpín, or Coinneach Mac Ailpín (which the Gaelic WP uses) in widespread use? That's an empirical question; let's see the evidence. Septentrionalis 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So, is wiki's function to consolidate the position of inaccurate names? And it is wondered why so many don't like this "guideline". Anyways, the modern Gaelic btw should be "Cionaodh mac Ailpein" or "Cionaodh mac Ailphein", as Coinneach properly corresponds to Old Gaelic Cainnech, rather than Cináed. Alpín is a Scoto-Picticization of the Old English name Ælfwine, and is almost non-existent in modern languages. Also, unlike either Martin Kyne or Geoffrey Keating, there's no evidence nor any reason to believe that Cináed even knew English, never mind modern English, and even in that case the name would be Cyneath (as Dumville has shown, this is like an anglicization of a Pictish/Scottish name, and not a separate English name meaning "royal oath") and not Kenneth, which didn't exist for centuries to come. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
No, the function of this wikipedia is to answer questions posed by anglophones. It is not to attempt to change English usage; there are other ways to do that. Septentrionalis 02:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:IMOS gave us Diarmaid mac Cearbhaill and Flaithbheartach. It's quite inappropriate in many cases. Anyway, adding as a see also isn't addressing the issue, and I've got plenty more worms in the can. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


This argument is more about the politics of the users than common usage.

French speakers, German speakers, Italian speakers etc… have no problem in adapting the names of both places and people to their own language.

Thus, Henry VIII becomes Henri VIII, Heinrich VIII and Enrico VIII d'Inghilterra respectively.

This is English Language Wikipedia.

For the overwhelming majority of English Speakers*…The Gaelic Languages are unknown and Very Difficult to read and pronounce.

Using unfamiliar and complex Gaelic names, particularly in the text’s body makes that text very difficult to follow and disrupts the readers flow. Continually, you have to jump back and forth to check who is who…the article on Dermot MacMurrough is virtually un-readable because of this.

This will put people off from reading Irish & Scottish history, if you continue doing this.

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform, entertain and educate. By making it difficult to read you’re diminishing it.

Surely, best thing to do, is to use the name most familiar by common usage (Typically the Anglicized version) both text body & title with Gaelic version bracketed, when that character is introduced (into the text).

  • Please note that the majority of English Speakers are not American, Irish, British or Antipodean but are African and Asian…for them too, English is a second language. A free resource like Wikipedia, please don’t make it unreadable.

Jalipa 10:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


Learning about any new topic requires learning new bodies of names. It's just an unavoidable thing one encounters when one reads about non-anglophone peoples. You're contradicting yourself, Jalipa. If wiki is for Asians and Africans, then names like Dermot and Duncan are as likely unfamilar as Diarmait and Donnchad. Why unnecessarily misinform people? BTW, Gaelic names are not hard to pronounce. These languages have pretty standardized spellings ... which is totally unlike English. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


I disagree. a) That I’m contradicting myself. b) That Gaelic names are easy to pronounce. c) That people are being misinformed.
a) Worldwide, more people are familiar with English & Anglicization than Gaelic.
b) The pronunciation of Gaelic is not obvious: Diamait, Cináed mac Ailpín, Coinneach Mac Ailpín, and the worst: Tairrdelbach mac Ruaidri Ua Conchobair (which is repeated in it’s entirety several time is the Dermot MacMurrough article).
Dermot, Kenneth MacAlpine and Turlough O’Connor are easy both to pronounce & memorize. All languages do this kind of thing.
c) Anglicization does not “misinform” people. I would suggest the exact opposite. Anglicization, by making it easier to understand, opens the subject up to wider audience. Jalipa 14:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Turlough is certainly shorter, but does it rhyme with thorough, through, rough, hough, dough or something else ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It rhymes with Lough. "Like a dog lapping soup the names of the MacLeans..." Septentrionalis 15:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monarchs

The monarchs section is written as though assuming that the title should not be part of the article name, but I don't see anywhere where it actually says that. Gene Nygaard 10:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Monarchial titles, paragraph 1: Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of monarchs, of modern countries in the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}".
This does not include title, so it should be omitted. This was the intention, and I think it's clear; but we can add it if there is some actual misreading. Septentrionalis 21:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm always uneasy drawing implications from what is not stated.
I was mostly making sure that we should be tracking down and changing articles such as Köprülü Mehmed Pasha and removing the "Pasha" from the article name. Gene Nygaard 02:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure Pasha should be omitted. He wasn't the monarch, and Pasha, like Earl, is a subordinate title. On the other hand, he's often called simply Mehmed Köprülü, which I hope is a redirect. Septentrionalis 20:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguating queens consort

The existing convention is not entirely clear about how we disambiguate queens consort who would otherwise have the same name, although we managed it pragmatically with Maria Anna of Bavaria. A thornier problem arises when applying naming conventions rigidly means giving a queen regnant and a queen consort the same name. This problem has arisen with Margaret of Scotland, Margaret of Scotland (Queen of Norway), and Margaret of Scotland (Dauphine of France). To complicate matters, the first is not generally known by this name, but as "the Maid of Norway". Scottish royals roughly before the time of Robert the Bruce do not have generally accepted family names, so it would be awkward to try to use one. Does the queen regnant automaticall take priority, or should we treat "Margaret of Scotland" as a disambiguation? As a general rule monarchs are more important than consorts, but in this case she was only a child who never ruled herself. The dispute about whether she was a queen is irrelevant. PatGallacher 00:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the last two comments indicate that we need to clarify that this guideline does lead to
  • Most royals having no title; but that
  • Name of Place with no title does not assert royalty. Septentrionalis 17:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Name of Place or even Name of Country does certainly not assert royalty, or being monarch. If that is a premise in naming kings, it is unthinked and will be unsuccessful. Particularly in Middle Ages, there are number of commoners known as "Name of Place" or "Name of Country" or suchlike. Bridget of Sweden was not a queen nor a princess. And, "of Some Town" is actually a usual designation of centuries-ago people instead of surnames which they did not have. Suedois 16:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cardinals

I have inserted here the text on which consensus is being reached at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western clergy)#Cardinals, so as to allow input there from readers of this page.

The new text is also in much better accord with the policy indicated in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people):

don't add qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation

and

Similarly, "King", "Queen", "Blessed", "Mother", "Father", "Doctor", "Mister", or any other type of qualifier is generally avoided as first word for a page name of a page on a single person, unless for disambiguation or redirect purposes

Lima 08:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Male consorts

I've changed the conventions to indicate that only queen consorts are intended when we say that no title is used in articles on consorts. Titles should most certainly be used for people like Prince George of Denmark. This was generally understood, I think, until some months ago when Cvfh decided to move George and Prince Albert's articles, supposedly to conform to naming conventions. john k 19:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the conventions to the way the stood until yesterday. Such a major change should only occur after discussion on this page. Noel S McFerran 19:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not a major change. It's a clarification. If you'll read archival discussions of this issue, you'll see that it was never intended to refer to male consorts. john k 19:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The conventions do not distinguish between males and females, nor should they. Charles 21:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I brought this up when the changes to George and Albert were put into place, too. I've always known both of them to have Prince before their name when referring to them and I imagine I'm not the only one. Although I couldn't back it up, I think Wikipedia (or at least, those involved) are taking it too far when dropping pre-marital titles, in respect of male consorts anyway. Craigy (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The only common names I have heard for the princes with "Prince" included are Prince Albert and Prince George, with no territorial designations. Those don't qualify under the conventions. It may be seen as taking it too far for the females, even. I am quite sure that there are countless queens (etc) who are better known by their married names than by their maiden names but conventions say otherwise. Charles 21:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with john k that there should be an exemption for male consorts, it's not usual IMO. Prince Albert was after all known as such, not necessarily under his Wiki consort name, because in that case we would have a confusion of him being a sovereign of Saxe-Coburg. Gryffindor 23:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Princes Albert and George are, or should be, covered by the same sort of general exception as 4 under monarchs. All articles should be at sensible names, and if the guidelines result in something else, make it clear that they have exceptions. Not that it should matter what the guidelines say if common sense tells you something different: WP:IAR and WP:NBD apply everywhere. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Angus, what are you supporting here, exactly? Prince Albert and Prince George are both ambiguous. john k 02:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

(Unindent) I'm not supporting anything, only opposing the idea of adding ever more byzantine guidelines. Having said that, the most obvious prince consort is Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, which might be a clue as to how the less obvious ones might be named. Since the matter is contested, discussion here is not the answer. After all, there's a process for moving pages. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Philip, for the time being, is living. Charles 00:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

In general, I agree with John. The succession laws are such that most male consorts keep their titles or are given new ones, whereas female consorts simply go by their husbands' titles. Deb 16:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with john k that his modification constituted a clarification rather than a change. I just read back through all of the archives, where the examples given regarding consorts are usually in the "Other Royals" section, and the examples given and discussed that I could find are of female consorts. Male consorts differ fundamentally from female consorts because the latter automatically take the feminine version of their husbands' titles (in most cases), whereas that has been the exception for male consorts (and the more recent the case, the more exceptional it is). Spain and Portugal had kings-consort as recently as the 19th century, but Spanish law now designates future male consorts by the title "Prince of Spain". Indeed, the trend is against males sharing their wives' monarchical title (Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, UK). Female consorts all have a maiden name and then share their husband's title: That situation is covered by this guideline, whereas no such pattern exists for males and no male examples have been included in the guideline. So a separate rule for male consorts is appropriate, but needs to be agreed upon here. I propose that such consorts' articles appear in WP under their marital title while they live, and under their pre-marital name posthumously. Lethiere 18:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, everybody seems to agree with me, or to not have expressed a clear opinion, except for Charles. Given that, I'm going to make the clarification, and move the articles back. john k 12:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there is no clear opinion among some and not a whole lot of agreement indicates that this needs further discussion. I am reverting the changes to the guidelines. I don't know how such an artificial construction can be applied to all females but not to males, when both were consorts and not all females ever used this form. Charles 14:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that the subject of male consorts has been discussed previously, and consensus was reached early in the history of the naming conventions. The fact that the wording of the conventions was still unclear doesn't mean that the conventions hadn't already been discussed and agreed in principle. Deb 16:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The implementation of ambiguous conventions after such discussion necessitates further discussion of the subject. Charles 16:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Invites rather than necessitates, perhaps. - Kittybrewster 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Charles, it has been explained why male consorts are different from female consorts. Female consorts become Queens, so referring to them as "Princess X" is confusing, which is why we don't include "Princess" in their article titles. Prince Albert and Prince George remained princes throughout their lives, so it is not confusing in the same way. Beyond that, there is absolutely no consensus for your interpretation of the rules, so the articles on Prince Albert and Prince George ought to be moved back to where they were for a long time, until such time as a consensus comes around to your position. john k 14:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I hate to disappoint you, but I support about half of his interpretation. I think the consort rules are broken, and that we should follow actual usage - which is largely, but not always, the same thing. Nevertheless, usage seems to me to be Prince Albert and George of Denmark respectively; James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell and Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley work fine for male consorts who are not royal by blood, and again, reflect usage. Septentrionalis 19:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, it wouldn't be much of a discussion if you didn't disagree with me. Prince Albert is ambiguous - there are various other Prince Alberts of note, particularly the current sovereign prince of Monaco, who is generally known as "Prince Albert." With current wikipedia naming conventions George of Denmark suggests that he was the king of Denmark, which of course he was not. And I'm not sure why you find "George of Denmark" to be more commonly used than "Prince George of Denmark". In both cases, the title you suggest doesn't work. Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Prince George of Denmark, beyond being where these articles were at for ages, are unambiguous and plausible titles. Charles' interpretation of naming policy, an interpretation which nobody yet (including you, apparently) agrees with, should not be a basis for moving articles which were at one location for a long time. The articles should go back, and people should do RMs if they want them to go somewhere else. I'm not going to actually move them back until I'm assured that Charles won't just go ahead and continue the move war (Prince Albert, in particular, has a ridiculous number of redirects that need to be corrected after each move), but this is quite obviously the correct position. At that point, if you (or Charles, or whoever) want to propose moves, go ahead, and let the chips fall where they may. But Charles's unilateral moves shouldn't get to stay simply because he's more persistent. john k 11:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no issues with Prince George of Denmark, but I think Albert is rather better known for being Victoria's Prince Consort than for being a prince of some postage stamp German principality. What's wrong with Albert, Prince Consort (or Prince Albert, Prince Consort if tautology doesn't offend) ? Open a requested move and then you'll be able to determine what the consensus actually is. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Albert, Prince Consort (or Prince Albert, Prince Consort) would be potentially alright with me. Better than the current title. My basic position is that we should move the things back to where they were at before any requested moving is done. I'm not the one who moved the things without an RM - Charles is. john k 15:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Titles granted to consorts are always of importance, so I would be fine with such a name. Howeverm, my previous moves were made in compliance with standing guidelines. Compare Henrik, the Danish consort, with Albert for naming. Charles 16:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty with this rationale because I can't agree that "James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell" and "Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley" are "usage". Usage would be "James Hepburn" or "the Earl of Bothwell", and "Henry Stuart" or "Lord Darnley". It seems to me that Wiki's foremost naming standard is usage, but that isn't its exclusive standard. Usage is normally blended with other criteria for encyclopedic reasons of clarity, NPOV, consistency, disambiguation, globalization, etc. In English-language communication my guess is that Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is more often referred to as "the Queen" or "the Queen of England" or "Queen Elizabeth". For that matter, "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh" is probably most often just called "Prince Philip" and the current "Princess Royal of the United Kingdom" is most often "Princess Anne", and so on for UK royalty. But none of the most used locutions is the title of a Wiki article because they don't go far enough to meet other Wiki criteria.
Therefore, I think that the current disagreement over Victoria's consort mixes up two issues: 1. are the conventions governing female consorts to be applied to male consorts, and 2. given that "usage" is the primary consideration, to what extent should the most common name be compromised in order to address other relevant conventions? I think inclusion of the most appropriate among surname ("Wettin"), geographical reference ("of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha") or (unique or rare) title ("Prince Consort") is needed in male consort article names. Lethiere 22:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the move to the present title. The article was properly placed at Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Deb 19:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
According to whom? Charles 22:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
According to me, for one. He is always known by this title in the UK. The article title was arrived at after much discussion and should not have been changed without consultation. Deb 22:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Always? Saxe-Coburg and Gotha or Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? What about plain old "Prince Albert" or the "Prince Consort". Is he not known by those? Charles 23:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes - but never by the title the article is currencly at. Deb 10:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
One related problem is that some editors (including the two major parties in this dispute) move pages unilaterally. They come across a page the name of which they consider does not conform with the Naming conventions and move it without discussion. The conventions allow for exceptions to the general rule. Were there always discussions before a page move, this kind of thing could be avoided. (Related to this is the changing of all page names form "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" to "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" in spite of the fact that English-language usage is overwhelmingly for the former). Noel S McFerran 13:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
True. That's why I've put in an RM request for what I consider an essential move. Deb 15:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The conventions (see #10) specifically state that they apply to male consorts as well as female consorts: "The same rule applies to male royal consorts.". The current name for the article follows the naming conventions.—Chidom talk  01:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This convention is completely broken

I've been going through various related articles, and I've come to the conclusion that these naming conventions are completely broken. A couple of points:

  1. For reigning monarchs, it is generally adequate, save that Polish monarchs, due to advocacy largely by Polish wikipedians, do not follow it at all.
  2. The other problem is regnal number for monarchs who are the only one of the name. Usage seems to be wildly inconsistent here, and often a number seems to be added not because the person in question used one, but in order to disambiguate (c.f. Alexander I of Greece). In other instances, like Louis Philippe, no ordinal is given, even though he was "Louis Philippe 1er."
  3. Another problem is what form of the name to use, which is wildly inconsistent. This is problematic with some reigning monarchs. For instance, All the Kings of Sweden who have traditionally been called "Gustavus" in English and who are called "Gustaf" in Swedish are for some reason called "Gustav" on Wikipedia.
  4. The problem even worse with non-reigning monarchs, and especially with royal women who marry men who are royals in other countries. What form of name do we use for a Spanish infanta, born and raised in Italy, who married a German husband and lived with him in Italy, where he was a Grand Duke, for most of her married life, before moving for her last two years to Vienna where she became Empress of the (largely German) Holy Roman Empire? She was also Queen of Hungary and Bohemia. Should she be the Spanish Maria Luisa, the German Maria Ludovika, the anglicized Maria Louisa? There are also serious issues with the endings of German feminine names - forms like "Marie" and "Maria" seem to be used indiscriminately and interchangeably, with no particular way to tell which one should be used.
  5. What do we do with people who have the same name? There seems to be a strong tendency to artificially disambiguate by making up slight variations on the same name. Thus, we have Prince Henry of Prussia and Prince Heinrich of Prussia, in spite of the fact that both men could be known by both names, and are. We also have even worse examples of similar things, as for instance when a long list of middle names is added to the title, not because the person was called by them, but in order to disambiguate.
  6. Russian consort naming is completely out of whack - just look at it. For the 6 russian Empresses between 1796 and 1917, we have five completely different forms in use. How on earth is anyone supposed to know that Maria Fyodorovna refers to the wife of Alexander III and Maria Fyodorovna of Russia refers to the wife of Paul I?
  7. consort naming in general continues to strike me as problematic. We've had debates about male consorts, with no consensus in sight, but the current female rules seem particularly anglocentric to me, in that they are based on common usage with British consorts. Does anyone actually call the late wife of Frederick IX of Denmark Ingrid of Sweden? Genealogists do, but wikipedia is not a genealogy reference. There's also problems with how to determine the "maiden name." Louis XIII's wife is traditionally called Anne of Austria. This is not because she was Austrian (she was Spanish), but because she came from the House of Austria. her niece and daughter-in-law, also a Spanish Habsburg, is at Maria Theresa of Spain, although parallelism would suggest either Marie Thérèse of Austria or Anna of Spain.
  8. Additionally, the consort naming rules lead to confusion with the main monarch naming rules. Anne of Austria could be a queen consort from Austria (or, er, Spain), or it could mean Anne, ruling Empress of Austria. Similarly, Victoria of the United Kingdom is the proper title in our naming conventions not only for Queen Victoria, but also for her eldest daughter, who became (briefly) German Empress and Queen of Prussia.

I'm not sure if there's any good way to resolve all of this. I will suggest one basic thing that I really do think should be in there: if two dynasts are known by the same name, disambiguate by birth and death dates. This will eliminate a fair amount of the inconsistency, and especially the creation of arbitrary article titles created entirely for the purposes of disambiguation. But it won't solve a lot of it.

I'm not sure what more to say about this. The current naming rules are incredibly complicated, and yet still far from clear on any number of issues (what I highlighted above is just a start.) Some potential suggestions that might help, but proposed much more tenuously than the previous proposal, are:

  1. Eliminate the current "Name Ordinal of Country" rule for monarchs. Instead: a) only disambiguate when necessary; and b) disambiguate parenthetically. Thus, instead of Henry IV of England, Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV of France, Henry IV of Castile, you'd have Henry IV (England), Henry IV (France), Henry IV (Holy Roman Empire and Henry IV (Castile). For monarchs who are the only one of the name, just have Louis XIV or Frederick William IV.
  2. Eliminate the current consort rule. Only use maiden name to disambiguate when this is commonly done (e.g. Anne of Austria, Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn). If the person is the only person by a given name to have been consort of a given country, there's no reason to not simply use that - Queen Marie of Romania only refers to one person in all of human history. Why refer to her by the entirely unrecognizable Marie of Edinburgh, which is a ridiculous artificial wikipedia form, in any event? In other, more ambiguous cases, disambiguation by date might be done...
  3. Try to come up with some kind of consistent rule to deal with princesses who marry princes who never become King or Grand Duke, or whatever. This is a particular mess that I didn't even mention above - there is absolutely no consistency in such cases.
  4. More broadly - wikipedia is not a genealogy source. Using genealogical rules for how to name articles is counter-intuitive and often awkward looking.

At any rate, the current rules are deeply intricate, but largely useless. I think we can do better.

Last thing - over on my user page I've been trying to make a fairly comprehensive list of European Queens consort from 1500 onwards. In organizing the list, I've also included in the table the monarchs they were consort to. I hope this is a useful resource for everyone. One thing you will notice as you look at it is how wildly inconsistent naming can be. See it at User:John Kenney/Queens. john k 17:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


You're terribly right, alas. I am trying to create a naming convention for the French Wikipedia, and I find that the only written one, the English one, is very complicated and seldom used. For the names of every regning monarch I propose this:
  1. Use the English name when it exists : Charles XVI Gustav like Charles X Gustav, not Carl XVI Gustaf (the choice between Gustav and Gustavus is another problem. I don't speak English well enogh to have an opinion about it).
  2. If no English form exists, or no Latin (for example) form used in English, then use the form in it's original language: Ladislaus III or Ladislas III, and not Władysław III; but Taishō or Taishō (emperor of Japan) and not ... not any translation of it!
  3. If a foreign monarch is well-known under his foreign name, we can tolarate it: Juan Carlos I, rather than John Charles I; Baudouin I (king of Belgium) rather than Baldwin I. But we can't if this monarch uses one of his predecessor's name: the next king of Spain is to be called Philip VI, not Felipe VI. generally, try to avoid such foreign names if such foreign names can be avoided: Henry (grand duke of Luxembourg) rather than Henri.
  4. Never use the term of Somewhere, which is not a part of the name: Louis XIV better than Louis XIV of France.
  5. Never use systematic titles wich are not a part of the name: Go-Sakuramachi, and not Empress Go-Sakuramachi; John Paul II, and not Pope John Paul II; Bartholomew I, and not Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople.
  6. Never use surnames or nicknames of monarchs: Napoleon I and not Napoleon I Bonaparte; Gustav I, not Gustav Vasa; Ladislaus III instead of Władysław III Spindleshanks; except if the nickname is the only way to disambiguate two monarchs with the same name.
  7. If an ambiguity does exist, use desambiguation parenthetically, with a clear definition of the title: Louis IV (king of France), and not Louis IV of France, nor Louis IV (France): Louis IV was a king of France, not a France. Names like "king" or "emperor" don't need a capital letter of course. Pre-emptive disambuguation are to be avoided: Louis XIV rather than Louis XIV (king of France).
  8. If a monarch is the only one to bear his name, use the numeral I only when it is officially used (most often for recent monarchs): Baudouin I (king of Belgium) and not Baudouin, but Henry (grand duke of Luxembourg) and not Henry I.
  9. If a monarch has an official regnal name, use it, even if it's not the most known one: Benedict XVI and not Joseph Ratzinger; Meiji or Meiji (emperor of Japan), and not Mutsuhito; Shōwa, or Shōwa (emperor of Japan), and not Hirohito. Since the Japanese emperors take their regnal name only when they die, the present emperor can be named by his personal name: Akihito, and not Heisei, but his article will have to be renamed after his death into Heisei or Heisei (emperor of Japan) as surely as the article Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was renamed into Pope Benedict XVI on the very hour of his election.
  10. If a monarch has two names, both abinding by this naming convention, the choice of one of them on the other is not really important: both Kōken and Shōtoku are correct. If the two titles are unequal, prefer the most prestigious one (emperor upon king upon prince upon duke...) : Ladislaus II (king of Poland) rather than Jogaila. If a monarch of a country is more trivially the monarch of another less important country, just use the name he bears in the first one: Philip III (king of Spain), rather than Philip II (king of Portugal).
  11. Create a template {{monarch name}} to place in every article found that doesn't respect the naming convention. Some will find better just to change directly the name of the article, but a lot of them have their present title after long disputes. I think that placing this template first could be a good first step, and maybe the user who find the article's title wrong may prefer to have the opinion of other users. To place the template is easier than to take the decision to change the article's name.
For consorts or members of a royal family, I have no ideas yet.
Švitrigaila 18:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I had detailed point by point responses, but I got edit conflicted and don't feel like merging them in again. Basically, I disagree with you about anglicization. Inconsistency is definitely a problem, but anglicizing more often is not the solution. Carl XVI Gustaf and Henri are called that, not "Charles Gustavus" or "Henry". I would, alternately, propose a date-based cut-off. European monarchs ruling before World War II should, by default, be anglicized unless it can be demonstrated conclusively that this is not the most common form. European monarchs after World War II should not be anglicized unless the reverse can be shown. This would allow for exceptions like Carol I and Constantine II, but also acknowledge that there is a genuine distinction to be made between the two time periods. In terms of disambiguation, pre-emptive and otherwise, I at least partially agree. I want to remove the "X of X implies monarch" idea, because "X of X" really should not imply monarch, and monarchs known as things like William of Holland and Philip of Swabia should be at those locations, rather than bizarre artificial locations because those titles currently imply that they were kings of Holland and Swabia, respectively. I'm somewhat concerned about "systematic titles". When are they part of the name? Are we limiting this rule to sovereigns? At what point does a ruler become a sovereign? john k 19:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, rereading, I think I wasn't very clear. What I mean by the last point above is, "what exactly is a reigning monarch?" This can become very confusing in the Middle Ages. john k 19:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to use English names in English, French names in French, and so on. I know I'm a minority, so I don't insist on it. but i think it's intersting to keep the traditions, and if there is a tradition to translate the Swedish Carls and the Spanish Felipes, there is no reason to terminate it.
This naming convention mustn't be limited to sovereigns. It can be expended to every people bearing this kind of name. For exemple some religious leader (the pope, but a lot of Eastern Orthodox Churches' leaders two), or rulers of territories bearing these kind of names.
Sorry for the editing conflict, it was you or me! Usually, it can be resolved easily by copiing and pasting what you wanted to write. It's just what I'm doing right now!! Švitrigaila 19:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Never use surnames or nicknames of monarchs" is completely unacceptable. Renaming Charlemagne to Charles I (Holy Roman Empire) or Edward the Confessor to Edward III (England, first series) is not an option. And let's not beg the question by dismissing bynames which have been in use for a centuries as "nicknames". Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think. I was going to say so in my original comment, but forgot, or decided not to, or something. Charles the Bold would be a far better title than the absurd Charles I, Duke of Burgundy, and similarly for many other medieval type rulers, who are better known by their by name than ordinal. On the other hand, I think that where it would be natural to use either byname or ordinal, we should favor the ordinal. So Edward I rather than Edward Longshanks, for instance. john k 22:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that what John is saying touches upon many things that should be fixed, but there are some things I do not agree with. I don't think the territory should be omitted if there is only one Louis XIV for instance. I also don't think that the territory should be placed in parentheses. To me, parentheses should only be used as disambiguation between two people with the same name (and that includes the same territorial designation). I think the ordinal think can easily be fixed... One just has to go with what was actually used. If there was only one monarch of a particular name then it must be determined whether or not he or she used "the First" or not.

But why, exactly, should Louis XIV be disambiguated? There is only one person ever called Louis XIV. I would add that for kings, the territorial designation is not part of their names. Louis XIV's name was "Louis XIV," not "Louis XIV of France". For instance, in my view at least, the thing that goes before birth and death dates on monarch articles should clearly be Louis XIV (1638-1715), not Louis XIV of France (1638-1715). In terms of ordinals: Maybe. But what do we do for the ones where an ordinal has been added to disambiguate? C.f. Alexander I of Greece. john k 03:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Parenthesising the disambiguation, including the territory, is technically better from an editing perspective and makes no difference to the reader. Endlessly typing [[Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor|Henry IV]] and the like becomes tedious very quickly. [[Henry IV (Holy Roman Empire)|]] is rather easier. For pre-modern people, either ordinals are used by historians, in which case they should be used here too, or they aren't, in which case whatever system the historians use should be followed. For modern people, it should be very easy to determine the common usage in English (i.e. Louis Philippe Ier is not called that in English and the only way that would be justified on WP would be if all French rulers were given French names). Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
In terms of ordinals for modern monarchs, I'm not sure I agree. On Louis Philippe, obviously we don't use the little superscripted "er" to mean "Premier". But He was Louis Philippe I (and arguably one could call his grandson Louis Philippe II). Also, what, precisely, is the usage on King Karl of Württemberg? Is he Karl I, or just Karl, or Charles, or Charles I? I am probably better equipped to answer this than most people, and I will say that I have absolutely no idea on either the anglicization question or the ordinal question. One would have to go to fairly specialized or detailed books to even find him mentioned. I would imagine that, at the time, he was usually called "Charles" in English. But the New York Times article from 1891 about his death calls him "Karl I." and his successor "Wilhelm II." And I really have no idea what current usage would be. More likely Karl than not. But it seems to me that it's pretty close to completely obscure. And Karl I was a King! He should be easy to find references to. Think how incredibly difficult it will be to find decent references on how to number/anglicize Princes of Schaumburg-Lippe or what not. john k 21:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

For issues of Marie/Maria/Mary, etc, for all intents and purposes those are acceptable in English, so just use what is the most common or use the form that goes with the language of the principal title.

A couple of issues with this. Doing it based on "form that goes with the language of the principal title" is easy enough for princesses whose principal titles were English or Scottish (Mary), French (Marie) or Italian or Spanish (Maria). But with Germans, it seems problematic - either Maria or Marie seems to be used, more or less indiscriminately. And this is true for an enormous number of German female names. Beyond that, you've got issues with, say, a French princess named "Amélie" who becomes queen of Portugal. Should she be Amélie, Amelia, or Amalia? All of this could be worked out, but there's a more basic problem at work here: there's tons and tons of already existing articles, and they're virtually impossible to find without going to the article on their husband, because there's absolutely no consistency in naming. john k 03:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Distinguishing between people with identical names should always be done via birth date and death date... That is what I have always done when disambiguating consorts and the like. The name sans dates should be a disambiguation page, of course. Speaking of consorts, I do not think the consort rule should be eliminated at all. For most consorts it reflects what was actually used. That in itself speaks of a standard. If there is another common name that ought to be used (because it has strong usage) then use it. There can be exceptions to rules.

Yes, the consort rule is workable, I think. I generally don't like using this form when there's a perfectly unique "Queen Givenname of Country." In Romania, for instance, there is one Queen Elisabeth, one Queen Marie, and one Queen Anne. In Yugoslavia there is a Queen Maria and a Queen Alexandra. In Greece there is a Queen Olga, a Queen Sophia, a Queen Elisabeth, a Queen Frederika, and a Queen Anne-Marie. In Italy there is a Queen Margherita, a Queen Elena, and a Queen Marie José. There's no especial reason to disambiguate by often not very well known birth names in these cases. But it's not a huge deal either way. I am, however, entirely frustrated with a certain number of subsets:
  1. Russian empresses. They are a total mess. I'm going to suggest my earlier proposal of "Regnal Name and Patronymic (Birthname of Territorial designation)". For a current example, of this format, see Alexandra Fyodorovna (Charlotte of Prussia).
  2. British princesses who were the granddaughter of the monarch and who married and became sovereigns. Marie of Edinburgh and Maud of Wales are just incredibly awkward titles for articles. They are never called this. They were, before their marriages, "Princess Marie of Edinburgh," and "Princess Maud of Wales," but those were styles, not names. This form should die a quick death.
  3. General Anglocentric problems with British princesses who became foreign queens. I think particularly of Charlotte, Princess Royal and Victoria, Princess Royal, who were, respectively, a Queen and an Empress, and who are nonetheless at locations emphasizing their birth country.

I don't think the consort rule really confuses with monarchs... That is all cleared up in the articles themselves. Most royal women so named were consorts, rather than sovereigns in their own right and most of the time it was a man who was sovereign. The sovereign women being the exception, they are notable enough for even the most daft of individuals to have an inkling as to the difference between her and a consort. Again, it is all within the articles. Regarding Victoria of the UK, her daughter used her highest title as a maiden princess, which is Princess Royal... I think that is acceptable. Had she not been created such, we would then have an issue.

But she was German Empress. Isn't it weird for the article title to call her a "Princess" when she was, in fact, an Empress. This is the whole point of the "remove Princess from Queens maiden names" rule. john k 03:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing that really does need to be fixed though is the series of Russian tsarinas and even some of the Russian grand duchesses! Territorial designations are omitted at times, marital territorial designations are mixed with maiden territorial designations and patronymics are either omitted or vary for women carrying the same one. I think this all shouldn't be the basis to change a bunch of rules, vut it needs to be discussed as an issue on it's own so a sort of style guide can be implemented if need be. Charles 01:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Women of the Romanov family are a mess. I see a number of categories:
  1. Empress-Consorts. These are:
    1. Maria Fyodorovna, wife of Paul
    2. Elizabeth Alexeyevna, wife of Alexander I
    3. Alexandra Fyodorovna, wife of Nicholas I
    4. Maria Alexandrovna, wife of Alexander II
    5. Maria Fyodorovna, wife of Alexander III
    6. Alexandra Fyodorovna, wife of Nicholas II.
  2. Grand Duchesses by marriage. I think they should be at the form "Grand Duchess Adoptedname [if applicable] Patronymic of Russia". Disambiguation, when necessary, can be done by birth and death dates. Ladies affected:
    1. Grand Duchess Natalia Alexeyevna (Wilhelmina of Hesse-Darmstadt), first wife of Tsar Paul
    2. Grand Duchess Anna Feodorovna (Juliane of Saxe-Coburg), first wife of Grand Duke Contantine Pavlovich
    3. Grand Duchess Helena Pavlovna (Charlotte of Württemberg), wife of Grand Duke Michael Pavlovich
    4. Grand Duchess Alexandra Iosifovna (Alexandra of Saxe-Altenburg), wife of Grand Duke Constantine Nikolayevich
    5. Grand Duchess Alexandra Petrovna (Alexandra of Oldenburg), wife of Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolayevich Senior
    6. Grand Duchess Olga Fyodorovna (Cecilie of Baden), wife of Grand Duke Michael Nikolayevich
    7. Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna (Marie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin), wife of Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich
    8. Grand Duchess Elisabeth Fyodorovna (Elisabeth of Hesse-Darmstadt), wife of Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich
    9. Grand Duchess Alexandra Yurievna/Georgievna [I'm not really sure - her father was King George I of Greece] (Alexandra of Greece), first wife of Grand Duke Paul Alexandrovich
    10. Grand Duchess Elisabeth Mavrikievna (Elisabeth of Saxe-Altenburg), wife of Grand Duke Constantine Constantinovich
    11. Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna (Anastasia of Montenegro), wife of Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolayevich Junior
    12. Grand Duchess Militza Nikolaevna (Militza of Montenegro), wife of Grand Duke Peter Nikolayevich
    13. Grand Duchess Maria Yurievna/Georgievna [again, a daughter of George I] (Marie of Greece), wife of Grand Duke George Mikhailovich
    14. Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna (Xenia of, er, Russia - the only Romanov to Romanov marriage!), wife of Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich
    15. Grand Duchess Victoria Feodorovna (Victoria Melita of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and the United Kingdom), wife of Grand Duke Cyril Vladimirovich
    16. Grand Duchess Leonida Yurievna/Georgievna, wife of Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich.
  3. Grand Duchesses by birth who became Queen consorts of foreign countries:
    1. Grand Duchess Catherine Pavlovna, who became Queen of Württemberg
    2. Grand Duchess Anna Pavlovna, who became Queen of the Netherlands
    3. Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna, who became Queen of Württemberg
      note that, as Queen of Württemberg, she was known as Alexandra! john k 22:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    4. Grand Duchess Olga Constantinovna, who became Queen of Greece
  4. Grand Duchesses by birth who became consorts, but not Queen consorts (i.e. Grand Duchesses, Duchesses, sovereign Princesses)
    1. Grand Duchess Catherine Ivanovna (1691-1733), who became Duchess of Mecklenburg-Schwerin
    2. Grand Duchess Anna Petrovna (1708-1728), who became Duchess of Holstein-Gottorp
    3. Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna (1786-1859), who became Grand Duchess of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach
    4. Grand Duchess Elisabeth Mikhailovna (1826-1845), who became Duchess of Nassau
    5. Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna (1853-1920), who became Duchess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
    6. Grand Duchess Anastasia Mikhailovna (1860-1922), who became Grand Duchess of Mecklenburg-Schwerin
  5. Grand Duchesses by birth who married foreign princes who were not themselves sovereigns
    1. Grand Duchess Alexandra Pavlovna, daughter of Tsar Paul, who married Archduke Joseph of Austria
    2. Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna, daughter of Tsar Paul, who married the Hereditary Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin
    3. Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna, daughter of Alexander III, who married (and later divorced) Duke Peter of Oldenburg
    4. Grand Duchess Maria Kirillovna, daughter of Grand Duke Cyril, who married the Prince of Leiningen
    5. Grand Duchess Kira Kirillovna, daughter of Grand Duke Cyril, who married Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia
    6. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, daughter of Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich, who married a prince of Prussia, but is the head of the house
    7. Grand Duchess Elena Vladimirovna, daughter of Vladimir Alexandrovich, who married Prince Nicholas of Greece
    8. Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna, daughter of Grand Duke Paul, who married (and later divorced) Prince William of Sweden
    9. Grand Duchess Maria Nikolayevna, daughter of Nicholas I, who married the Duke of Leuchtenberg
    10. Grand Duchess Alexandra Nikolayevna, daughter of Nicholas I, who married a Prince of Hesse-Kassel
    11. Grand Duchess Vera Constantinovna, daughter of Constantine Nikolayevich, who married a Duke of Württemberg
    12. Grand Duchess Catherine Mikhailovna, daughter of Michael Pavlovich, who married a Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz
  6. Grand Duchesses who did not marry foreign princes
    1. Grand Duchess Praskovia Ivanovna, daughter of Ivan V (there were a couple of others who died in infancy)
    2. Grand Duchess Natalia Alexeyevna, daughter of Tsesarevich Alexis, son of Peter the Great
    3. a few daughters of Peter the Great and Catherine I who died in infancy
    4. Grand Duchess Olga Pavlovna, daughter of Paul (died in infancy)
    5. Grand Duchesses Maria Alexandrovna and Elisabeth Alexandrovna, daughters of Alexander I (both died in infancy)
    6. Grand Duchess Maria Mikhailovna, daughter of Michael Pavlovich (and a sister, Anna Mikhailovna, who died in infancy)
    7. Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria, and Anastasia Nikolayevna, daughters of Nicholas II
  7. sui generis, Grand Duchess Anna Leopoldovna, mother of Emperor Ivan VI.

So, we need to figure out how to deal with all these ladies. (Not to mention all the Princesses of Russia. john k 03:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that these really have to be discussed separately. But let me say here that I sympathize with John's position, whatever disagreements with individual points I may have later. The only general comment I can make is that some of these, like the Polish monarchs, cannot be fixed by altering the convention; they have to be fixed by move requests, backed up by documentation. Elonka has done this at Talk:Boleslaw I of Poland; it's a long slow process, but it works. Septentrionalis 16:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One thing at a time

The above discussion about a "completely broken" convention is hardly useful when it is dealing with so many matters at one time. That is no way to achieve a consensus. I don't think that the convention is perfect. But the mere fact that some articles do not conform with it is not proof of brokenness; there is nothing wrong with occasional exceptions to the rule. Let's talk about one thing at a time. Noel S McFerran 03:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll start out with disambiguation of dynasts whose names/titles are the same. I propose that this be done by birth and death dates. john k 03:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the following wording:
Where the most common form of the name used in English for two persons is identical (e.g., Elisabeth of Austria), distinguish the two persons by adding birth and death dates (e.g. Elisabeth of Austria (1554-1592)). Where two persons are sometimes known by an identical name (e.g., Infante Carlos of Spain), but are more commonly known by different names or different forms of the name, use the most common form of the name used in English (e.g. Carlos, Count of Montemolin and Carlos, Duke of Madrid).
Noel S McFerran 13:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
What do we do in the many cases where we only have imprecise dates ? For example, if we had to disambiguate Margaret of Denmark, Mrs James III of Scotland, (which I don't think we do, but I couldn't be bothered looking for a better example) how do we do that ? Margaret of Denmark (born 1456) ? Margaret of Denmark (1456-x1486) ? Something else again ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Margaret of Denmark (1456-1486)? Seems close enough for government work. Noel's proposed wording seems good. john k 14:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Or Margaret of Denmark (1456-1486?). Or possibly Margaret of Denmark (queen consort of Scotland). Septentrionalis 16:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
According to the 'Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,
Margaret of Denmark died at Stirling Castle on 14 July 1486 and was buried in Cambuskenneth Abbey later that month.
According to them, it is her birthdate that is uncertain, being either in 1456 or 1457. john k 17:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
If the birthdate is uncertain, could we not used Margaret of Denmark (d. 1486)? It have been implemented before for a royal of either unknown birthdate or death date (I can't remember which). Similarly, the birthdate only has been used to disambiguate between living royals of the same name, that is (b. 1954) for example. Charles 18:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not that keen on the "dates" solution to disambiguation problems, because I don't think it is much help to a user who may be trying to find the particular person they want. A description of some kind is generally more useful. Having said that, I realise of course that there is an issue of standardization here. Deb 19:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
We'd certainly need to have a serious look at disambiguation pages and redirects. Until last week, King Stephen redirected to a French nonentity. No doubt there are many more similar cases of bias (indeed; less than a minute to find Michael II). Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you describing the Sephen who was King of England as "a French nonentity"? I do agree that he shouldn't get precedence over the Kings Stephen of Hungary, Poland, and Serbia. Beyond that, I think the dates solution is better because it works for everyone. Sometimes a description of some kind isn't terribly helpful. Prince Henry of Prussia (brother of Frederick the Great) and Prince Henry of Prussia (brother of William II) doesn't seem particularly worthwhile, for instance. And I agree with Angus that disambiguation pages and redirects are the key to making anything relating to royalty work - there's far too many bizarre redirects and idiosyncratic article locations, and far too few disambiguation pages and redirects on alternate versions of names. john k 21:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I think 9 times out of 10 an English speaker would only be referring to one person by the name "King Stephen" ... the evil one during "the Anarchy". I don't think it'd be fair to call him a non-entity; at the very least, one of the reasons the English legal system was so sophisticated by the death of Henry II was in order to disinherit lawfully and effectively the followers of Stephen; and in being French he was exactly the same as every other rex Anglorum in the century before and after his reign, including Henry II (who according to Gerald of Wales needed a translation to speak to the Saxon rustics who were ignorant of the court language. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henry IV

Reasons for the present practice, which is Henry IV of England, Henry IV of France, Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor. (Please free free to reply to each separately.)

  • I join in prefering Henry IV for all of these; Heinrich IV is not standard English usage, Henri IV is dubious, both are pedantic. (And do we really want to be so authentic as to use Harry IV?)
  • Even if there were consensus to use non-English forms, it would not solve the problem. There's still James I of Scotland and James I of England, and there are doubtless infinite German ambiguities.
  • Making Boleslaw I of Poland standard helps keep out forms like Boleslaw I the Bold, which tend to be POV unless they are international consensus, like Charlemagne.
  • Between Henry IV of France and Henry IV (France), ease of typing cuts both ways. Links should be the first reference in an article, and that reference will often be something like "Elizabeth supported Henry IV of France". It will never be "Henry IV (France)". Septentrionalis 18:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I would have no objection to making Henry IV (France) a standard redirect so the pipe trick will work. Septentrionalis 18:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
This is picking an easy example, which rather defeats the purpose of the discussion. An advantage of parenthetical disambiguation is that it works in all cases and we don't need to use a different system for monarchs and others. It even works for horrible cases like Cristina, daughter of Edward the Exile and Agatha, wife of Edward the Exile. It would help for Kievan Rus rulers, if we ever get round to having articles on most of those. No need to have arbitrary rules to distinguish Iaroslav Sviatopolkovich (son of Sviatopolk Iziaslavich) from Iaroslav Sviatopolkovich (son of Sviatopolk Iaroslavich). It would also simplify dealing with the Byzantine and Islamic worlds, where the stock of royal names tends to be rather limited. Think big ! Let's not have a guideline that only really works for England, France and the Holy Roman Empire in the late medieval and modern eras. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Horrible systems are intended for horrible cases. I agree that Cristina (daughter of Edward the Exile) is preferable to the unparenned version. What does this case, which is not covered by the present convention at all, have to do with Henry IV, where there is an easy and obvious dab?
I disagree strongly that this is necessary or useful for the Byzantines, who have an established nomenclature (including surnames, which do most of the work). If anyone wants an Islamic convention, feel free to write one. Septentrionalis 22:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The John Doukas (disambiguation) page suggests that the Byzantine system is less bulletproof than you think. The fact that John Komnenos, Alexios Angelos and Isaac Angelos, to pick only three, are redlinked, is further evidence that the Byzantine system only works for a very limited value of working. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
All those John Ducases have distinct names, however; and Isaac Angelus is Isaac II Angelus, as he ought to be. Alexius may still be struggling in the swamp resulting from overuse of ODB transliteration. Septentrionalis 00:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I also would support, and regret not having a chance to suggest, Prince Albert (consort). Septentrionalis 00:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with Angus, I think, and also add that I would probably say "Elizabeth supported Henry IV of France." john k 21:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
How about if you'd already mentioned France? Septentrionalis 22:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd hope that the article would make make it clear who Henry IV was when it introduced him, or that it said Henry IV King of France. Having checked, the Elizabeth I article as it stands only links to Henry IV as Henry IV. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
And that could be clearer. I've left a double link, since I don't care which name we link through. Septentrionalis 00:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure that this is not a angles on pinheads argument. Several times I have created pages with names like English Interregnum and at the same time created a redirect that points to it to take advantage of the pipe trick (so named because it is taken from ideas in UNIX shell programming) Interregnum. From the arguments expressed on this page to date has left me agnostic on whether pages should be moved from Henry IV of England to Henry IV (England). From the point of view of just English Kings and Queens, I would leave them at "XXX 99 of England" but I can also see the argument that for some foreign dynasties this may not be appropriate -- after all we already make that distinction for Roman emperors, and we are tying to construct a general rule. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

When there's an ordinal, "Henry IV of England" works, because the person in question is obviously a reigning monarch. But John of England, Paul of Greece, and so forth, are a lot more awkward. And then there's the cases where it's entirely unnecessary - there's only one Louis XIV, only one Edward VIII, only one Frederick William IV, only one Carl XVI Gustaf, and so forth. Changing the way we do it doesn't make "Henry IV of England" any better, but it does let us have Louis XIV and John (King of England), which seem like definite improvements to me. john k 14:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
But when there isn't ? Encouraged by your suggestion that we fill in missing royalty, I added a King of France : Philip of France (1116-1131). I don't see an easy way to do that without brackets. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Angus, I believe we agree. the current policy works for monarchs with ordinals, but not very well for monarchs without ordinals. brackets seem to be the best way to deal with these issues, in that it allows the awkward parts of the title to be left in the brackets. john k 19:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I don't like the parenthesised country name. X (foo) generally means "the X that is/was a foo" ("the John Smith who was a British politician", or what not). Henry IV was not an England, and so Henry IV (England) just seems wrong to me. The more correct Henry IV (King of England) is just too unwieldy, and I can see your point about John of England not looking right. The only solution I can see to that that sits well with me is to remove our rule about not having titles in article names and put him at King John of England. Since he's normally called "King John", this would seem quite sensible to me. If we did this with them all, most of the problems about people looking like Kings would be removed, as they'd only look like Kings if they had "King" in their article name. This would also be consistent with your suggested Queen Marie of Romania (which I agree is the best place for her to be). Proteus (Talk) 15:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Or Marie of Romania, which adds flexibility. It's a direct link from uses like Dorothy Parker's, and we can still write "Queen Marie of Romania" when precision is wanted. But abolishing the (inadvertent) convention that Name of Place looks like royalty would be a Good Thing; so I'm torn. Septentrionalis 19:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I really don't like links to names that have part included whilst excluding another part. Queen Marie of Romania, Sir John Smith, Professor Henry Jones, etc., all make us look quite sloppy, in my opinion. Proteus (Talk) 22:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The advantage of the parenthetical is piping. And I'm not sure why John (King of England) is particularly more unwieldy than King John of England. The former format is closer to the way other encyclopedias do things, in that what it means is that the title of the article is "John," which is what it should be. john k 15:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Well I suppose by "unwieldy" I meant "not particularly user-friendly" or "unattractive at first glance". What we've tried to do in the past with titles is find a form that might be quite long but is quite natural-looking and reduces the chance of disambiguation being necessary (which obviously results from a basic assumption that overt disambiguation (like parentheses) should normally be avoided if another alternative is available). Hence Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury — the Henry IV (England) suggestion strikes me as similar to saying "we really want to link to Lord Salisbury, so lets put him at Lord Salisbury (Prime Minister), Lord Salisbury (3rd Marquess) or Lord Salisbury (1830-1903) and then use the pipe trick whenever we link to him", which, though obviously a somewhat reasonable suggestion, is one we have rejected at a pretty fundamental level on previous occasions in this area. Also, I'd query your assumption that "John" is the natural title of the article, and so should be the automatic starting point: I'd say he's usually called "King John" (which, if these guidelines didn't exist, would then be the normal place for his article to be), and that "King John" is just as much his name as "John" is (obviously his actual name was "John, by the Grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine and Count of Anjou", but that's hardly a useful article title). I also think that calling him plain "John" is something that would never happen out of context. Obviously if one were talking about English Kings, "John reigned after Richard I" is quite natural, but I don't think anyone would suggest that something like "people born in Oxfordshire include Gary Glitter, Dorothy L. Sayers and John" would be reasonable. "John" might be the correct name if this were a genealogical database, which the current rules would seem to apply more to, but we should, I feel, be more concerned with helping our readers understand what's going on with the minimum of fuss. In many cases, who or what an article concerns is not at all obvious under the current rules, which is something I feel we should address. One more point (last one, I promise): if we adopted an approach similar to mine, we could reduce the basic naming conventions to a very simple rule: if the title-holder is numbered, use "Rank Name Numeral of Place"; if the title is numbered, use "Name, Numeral Rank of Place". All this "was so-and-so a Sovereign" debate could then be rather firmly be knocked on the head. Proteus (Talk) 22:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Proteus is obviously correct. It is very POV to de-King poor John. - Kittybrewster 22:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It's true, there's not a problem with what to call kings of England after 1066. There's not a problem with what to call people who held a British/English/Scottish/Irish peerage that can be looked up in some dreary old book to find out whether they were the Nth or the N+1th Earl of Whatever. But those are a tiny minority of articles to which this guideline is presumed to apply. It also applies to the people on Louis of France (disambiguation), which isn't very consistent (and Charles of France (disambiguation), Edward of England (disambiguation) or David of Scotland (disambiguation) might not be all that great either, had anyone written them). The further from England you get, the more difficult it is to apply the existing guidelines. Stefan Batory is not Stephen I of Poland; Stefan Dušan or Stefan Uroš IV Dušan would be better than Stefan Uroš IV Dušan of Serbia, being as how he didn't rule Serbia, which is in turn better than Stephen VII of Serbia (or whatever the exact number would be), and so on ad nauseam. As for the stylistic issue, pipes work both ways and redirects should exist from any and all plausible places. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Proteus, when I say "John" is the natural title, what I mean is that this is the title that he would have in an ordinary paper encyclopedia that didn't need to have all its articles have different titles. The peerage convention that we have pretty much matches the way that most encyclopedias title their articles on peers. Our convention on monarchs does not. A normal encyclopedia would have an article "John" on John of England, another article "John" on John of Bohemia, another article "John" on John of Saxony, an article "John II" on John II of France, and so forth. By "natural title" I don't generally mean "how you would naturally refer to someone," but "how an encyclopedia would naturally title an article on someone." john k 00:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
But we've never let "what would other encyclopaedias do?" influence our decisions very much. A normal paper encyclopaedia is very limited by the fact that everything has to be in a very obvious alphabetical order, and so they don't really have any choice but to put King John at "John" (they can hardly alphabetise all Kings under "King"). We don't have that problem (and in those bits of Wikipedia that are in alphabetical order, like categories, we get to choose how each article is alphabetised), so the "article names must start with a name" rule that paper encyclopaedias must stick to is the least of our concerns. We should really be taking advantage of Wikipedia's electronic format, not ignoring it. Proteus (Talk) 08:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
We don't have that particular problem, but the way wikipedia names articles is not simply a result of that. It is also a result of certain limitations wikipedia has that a conventional encyclopedia does not, foremost among them the problem that an article's title and an article's location must be identical, so that we can't have articles with the same title. I think this is much more responsible for the issue than any alphabetization. If Britannica, et al, thought that alphabetical order was the only reason not to have the article at "King John," then the article would be at "John, King." It is not. It is at "John." This is how reference works generally refer to monarchs - name and, if necessary, ordinal. Sometimes they include a byname, or a surname or a "of Placeoforigin" (e.g. Philip of Swabia). They never include "King," and they never include "of Country." john k 17:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
A couple of software changes would really help with these things. Most notably, it would be nice if the location of a page and the title of a page could be different, so that multiple pages couuld have the same title without being in the same location. That way you could have a ton of different articles titled (at the head of the article) Henry IV, without all of them being at the location Henry IV. Another nice change would be if text could be piped in categories, so that all category pages wouldn't be stuck at whatever location the page is at. john k 15:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


Please don't let's rush into any changes in the naming of monarchs. It took us a long time and lots of discussion to get to the point we are at today. The present format has been in use for at least 3 years and people have had time to get used to it. Deb 16:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
And yet I have done hundreds of edits a month fixing wikilinks to monarchial dab pages, and I'm not the only one doing it. Likewise, we are apparently missing a great many obvious redirects and disambiguation pages since I created a dozen or more yesterday that seemed that way to me. There's not much room for complacency regarding the current state of affairs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that part of what might be in order is a good, active wikiproject on European royalty that tries to deal with these things in some kind of systematic way. Some sort of task force to create appropriate disambiguation pages and redirects would be tremendously useful. An effort to create genuinely decent stubs (and there is such a thing) on as many royal figures as we possibly can would also be useful, especially if combined with mass creations of appropriate redirects and disambiguation pages. Part of the problem with royals is that it's so damned hard to find the article one is looking for, that one is never completely sure if there's already an article lurking somewhere out there, that one just can't find. john k 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the current "X of Y" should be dropped as the main guideline because in most cases it gives a) a clear and unambigius name b) a fairly predictable result and c) a nicely readable title. The problem is that people follow the rules on this page too narrowly without consulting the more general guidlines, first and foremost Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. Fornadan (t) 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem is that it's often not at all clear either what the most common name is or where this convention thinks a person should be located. I noted about King Karl I of Württemberg. I have no idea whether he should be at "Charles I", "Charles", "Karl I", or "Karl". So far, the only source I've been able to discover is the 1891 obituary of him in the New York Times, which calls him "Karl I" (compare to their obituary of William III of the Netherlands a year earlier, who is distinctly "William III"), and the 1911 Britannica, which, by contrast, calls him "Charles I". To go further, there's any number of instances with princesses where the current stands are just entirely unclear and the name is unclear, leaving dozens of possible redirect/disambiguation pages to make things clear. It's a mess, largely because a) different forms of names are used; b) it's hard to find references to a lot of these people; and c) the naming standards are completely unclear, so even when we know all the relevant information, it's still not very clear where articles are supposed to go. john k 18:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The present arrangement (Charles I of Württemberg, but Karl in the first line) seems reasonable. Let me see if I can find sources. Septentrionalis 19:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Alfred Douglas

Could someone familiar with these standards please take a look at Lord Alfred Douglas? As I've remarked at Talk:Lord Alfred Douglas#Name, I believe that someone went a bit overboard here. - Jmabel | Talk 05:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Guidelines: recent history

Just so that it's all in one place, for anyone interested in the discussions of potential new guidelines, here are some relevant recent naming debates and fiascos.

Do the current guidelines have broad support ? Are they working ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think they are working. Please consult WP:POINT: "the project is not consistent; it tolerates things it does not condone. These are arguably not defects." I advise the guys active on this page to direct their activities into a more practical channel. Could you do something to end the perennial confusion between Maria Fyodorovna and Maria Fyodorovna of Russia? The title Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse is extremely lame, too. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
On my user subpage linked below (which you've already at least glanced at, since you said you didn't like it on the talk page), I made a proposal on Romanov women. Do you have any thoughts on it? john k 15:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it's all quite a mess. Another issue is old James VI and I, who is at the title James I of England, which is guaranteed to periodically attract the attention of an annoyed Scottish person who wants to move it. To say nothing of the irritated people from Basse-Navarre who periodically complain about Henry IV of France...oh, wait, that doesn't actually happen. Nonetheless, the current system is very irritating. I'm thinking of trying to work out new proposed guidelines. john k 16:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be for adding a rule to the naming convention, that Kings of England before William I of England do not get ordinals. For no other reason than the Victorians chose to do it that way and it messes up the later Edwards (Edward I of England etc) --Philip Baird Shearer 16:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
What do we do about Ethelred I and Edmund I, though? They don't have any other names that I'm aware of. john k 16:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Edmund and Ethelred are indexed as kings of Wessex in Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England. Numbers are used for kings of Wessex/Mercia/Northumbria, so no problem there if only WP didn't have English kings starting with Alfred [*cough*]. For Kings before the Conquest Stenton has Athelstan and kings from Edgar onwards not qualified as "of Wessex". Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is Athelstan King of England, but his successor is not? I recall that Edwig was not king of the whole country, but I had thought that Edmund and Edred were. john k 21:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a user subpage User:John Kenney/Naming conventions (names and titles), where I've tried to revise the rules in the direction I'd want to go. It still feels very awkward, though. I've also tried to add a section describing proposed naming rules for the Romanovs. john k 16:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The only problems I see here are
  • Harald Fairhair, where we should simply decide: when do we use both cognomens and numerals?
  • the Byzantine mess, over which this page has never claimed jurisdication, and which is fundamentally a question of how to transliterate Greek.
  • I like the rest of them. Septentrionalis 23:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions for abolished titles - Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples

You may find the discussion here - Talk:Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples under the heading "Titular" interesting. Also, in the archive for that talk page there is also similar discussion on naming conventions. The issue is whether or not titles which have been abolished in the relevant legal jurisdiction should still be attributed to claimants as settled fact, or whether instead the name of the person should be used with the word "titular" before the abolished title. Cheers --SandyDancer 12:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Question - the guidelines on this page deal with what to call deposed monarches (living or deceased) but the guidelines on other royals do not deal with those who would have non-monarchical royal titles but for the abolition of the monarchy to which the individual was connected. What is the view? --SandyDancer 13:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Titular is used for the highest title the person may claim. For instance, George Frederick, Prince of Prussia (Titular German Emperor, King of Prussia and Grand Duke of Mecklenburg) or Ernest Augustus, Prince of Hanover (Titular King of Hanover). Simple as that. Charles 18:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe so (although I must say I am unconvinced as to the validity of your statement). Our discussion has now moved on from this. I accept that prefixing the defunct title of a living ex-royal with "titular" may not be the best of way of representing the real situation. Simply asserting a living person is, in this case, Prince of Naples, where clearly that person is not, is silly. --SandyDancer 18:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
He was Prince of Naples, and by courtesy, members of no longer ruling royal families are treated as continuing to have the titles they used to have when the monarchy was going. The head of the family and his heir may also take on a separate title of pretense, which will usually be a subordinate title formerly held by the head of the house (e.g. Duke of Braganza, or Margrave of Meissen or Count of Barcelona). Other, junior members born after the end of the royalty are generally treated, by courtesy, as having whatever title they would have had if the monarchy continued (in this case of the house of Savoy, that is "Prince/ss N of Savoy"). Other members who held substantive noble titles generally continue to use them (e.g., the Duke of Aosta, until he started calling himself the "Duke of Savoy," a title which falls alongside "Margrave of Meissen," and the like). This is not usually recognized formally by the Republican governments involved (although occasionally it is - Portugal and France explicitly recognize their pretenders, and, in France at least, the titles they grant; in Germany, the titles of the former royals are officially treated as part of their name, but more or less formally recognized - I believe the eldest son of the late Prince of Leiningen was officially barred from taking the name "Fürst zu Leiningen" after his father died because his father had disinherited him), but these titles would be used in most other contexts. It is not our place to enforce republican formalities in preference to the way the person is actually addressed by the people he generally interacts with. john k 19:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought France didn't recognise the pretenders any more - didn't a French court decline to ajudicate between the competing claims of the Orleanist and Carlist lines? Timrollpickering 20:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
A court did, but the government, as I understand it, several times recognized the late Comte de Paris. I'm not sure that can be taken back. Beyond that, the titles of pretension are more or less recognized by the French government, and the Comte de Paris is definitely recognized as being Duke of Orléans, Chartres, Valois, and so forth. But you're right that they've refused to take sides on the legitimist/orleanist dispute. john k 21:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New RM at Talk:Jogaila

Especially as some editors are now saying that the previous move (from Wladyslaw II of Poland to Jogaila) sets a bad precedence and breakts this naming convention, I expect this voting and discussion may be of interest to readers of this page.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Okay, the problem of inadequate redirects is really serious. Looking through the articles on Dukes of Saxe-Coburg, I've discovered a complete mess, in which several articles are created on the same individual simply because people don't realize that there's an article already existing (there were multiple version of Ernst Friedrich, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld and Franz, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld). What I think we really need is a serious wikiproject on European royalty that would take some of this mess in hand. Another thing is that we need to clarify when to Anglicize and when not to. I would suggest the following guidelines:

  1. Slavic and Finno-Ugric names should always be anglicized.
  2. The names of members of the (modern) Greek royal family should always be anglicized.
  3. German names should be anglicized only for Kings and Emperors - that is to say, Austrian and German Emperors, German Kings, Kings of Prussia. I think that the kings of the subordinate kingdoms, with the exception of Hanover (with its close connections to the British royal family), should not be anglicized, and no subordinate rulers should be anglicized at all. While this might lead to some rulers being at less familiar forms of their names, not anglicizing is in line with recent academic practice, and most of these people are so little referred to in English that it would be quite hard to find sufficient references to discover what the most common usage is. Since both forms are commonly used in English, it makes sense to simply choose one and go with it. Cadet members of families should stay at German forms, except for the Habsburgs, who, because of their division into Austrian, Tuscan, and Modenese lines, should probably all be anglicized.
  4. For French names, French kings should be anglicized, but nobody else, at least from the late middle ages onward. So Francis II of France, but François Hercule, Duke of Anjou. This practice is followed in various scholarly sources, for instance R. J. Knecht's The Rise and Fall of Renaissance France.
  5. For Spanish names, the same deal as for the French, except when the king's name is never anglicized, e.g. Alfonso XII.
  6. For Portuguese names, the same deal as the Spanish.
  7. For Italians:
    1. The House of Savoy should follow the same rules as the Spanish and Portuguese, I think. (Although it's tough before the 19th century, as French was probably more the actual court language, so I'm not sure)
    2. Members of other native dynasties (e.g. Estes, Farneses, Gonzagas, Medicis) should not be anglicized.
    3. Members of foreign dynasties (Habsburgs, Bourbons) should always be anglicized, given their questionable national status.
  8. Romania: Kings Carol should not be anglicized, everyone else should be.
  9. Princesses who do not become consorts should follow the naming standards of the country of their birth, unless they have married into the British royal family, in which case their name should be anglicized.
  10. Princesses who become consorts should follow the naming standards of their husband's country, unless they were born into the British royal family, in which case their name should be in its original form.
  11. Redirects should really be created at all plausible alternative titles.

Any thoughts? Even if this particular proposal is not accepted, we really do need clear guidelines, especially for the Germans. "Common name" alone just doesn't cut it when there's hundreds of obscure sovereign rulers wandering about unmoored. We need to make a real decision on this. john k 12:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion such a "regularization" of names would create at least as many problems as the current situation. Furthermore, it imposes a wiki-standard upon scholarship which is comparable to original research.
I don't understand the latter statement. john k 14:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Does Mr Kenney really think that we should have a King "Louis Philip" of the French (instead of Louis-Philippe)? Or, to take it further, should all French kings named Louis actually have articles calling them "Lewis" (the English spelling of the name - and certainly common for French kings in books of a certain age). Does the Empress Maria Theresa become Mary Theresa? How are the Estes a native dynasty of Italy (they come from Germany; they had just been around longer)? Does the last reigning king of Portugal become King "Emmanuel II" - or does this count as one of those "never anglicized" times? I'm not sure why Alfonso is specifically excluded from anglicization because I can find dozens of examples in older works of anglicization to Alphonsus.
See below for a fuller discussion - in short, I agree with you on all the examples you bring up, and did not intend to suggest any such nonsense. I will revise my proposal. However, the Este's are most certainly not a German dynasty. This guy seems to be the first documented Este, and he was living in Italy in the 10th century. Apparently, according to the wikipedia Este article, and laid out more tenuously in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article, the family was thought to be from the Frankish nobility that had come to Italy in the 9th century. But there's no especially clear evidence of this. By the time the Este appear in the full light of history and actually take the name Este, they are in Italy, and have been in Italy for some time. I'm not sure if you were noting the supposed Frankish background as grounds for calling them German, or if you were mistakenly assuming the somewhat later Guelf connection (I believe from around 1100) made them German - in fact, the Guelfs of Germany were descended from the Italian house of Este, not vice versa. john k 14:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
We should follow the pattern of published scholarship. We should not try to invent something new (it's un-wiki, and it's doomed to failure anyway). Noel S McFerran 13:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I clearly haven't laid out my ideas nearly as well as I'd hoped. I don't want any of the horrors that Noel outlined above to come to pass. My intention was rather to provide consistent answers to the question "how do we anglicize when both native and anglicized forms are commonly used?" I seem to have failed in elaborating this clearly and in a way that accords with my actual preferences. Perhaps putting it more basically would be better:

  1. For Kings and Emperors, we should err towards the anglicized form when both anglicized and non-anglicized forms are commonly used. If the clearly predominant form is non-anglicized, we should stick with that. Archaic and never used anglicized forms are to be ignored. There should probably be some exceptions to that, like Kings of Bavaria, or Kings of Württemberg - I'm sure Noel and others would be able to outline other exceptions (I am uncertain what to do, for instance, with the Kings of Portugal).
  2. For members of Europe's ruling houses who are not kings or emperors, we should generally err towards non-anglicized forms. Again, there should probably be some exceptions to this (such as, for instance, the Habsburg and Bourbon rulers in Italy, and possibly Habsburg Archdukes in general)\

So, again:

  1. If an anglicized form is always or nearly always used, we stick with that. (e.g. Nicholas I of Russia, George I of Greece)
  2. If a non-anglicized form is always or nearly always used, we stick with that. (e.g. Carol I of Romania, Louis-Philippe of France, Ercole III d'Este, Duke of Modena)
  3. In cases where it's less clear, we have rules. (e.g. Karl I of Württemberg, Henry IV of France)

Is this less to Noel's distaste than the previous formulation? john k 14:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't treat lesser ruling houses like Kings and Emperors: follow majority usage, when it's unclear, lean towards anglicization.
No, I'm not proposing that. Any particularly bad think you think I am proposing, I am not. But note that he's currently at John, Duke of Burgundy. I think Jean Sans-Peur would be an improvement on that, but that wasn't really the point. In the reformulated conception, we only use the French name when we haven't found a dominant form in English - which for people like John the Fearless and Philip the Good, I think we have. john k 20:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to see, what I thought, that the editors here largely agree in practice, even when we disagree on what principle to derive them from. But if Noel and I can read these so badly, interested and unscrupulous editors will do much worse. Septentrionalis 23:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I would like to find a way to actually provide some guidance in the difficult cases, without actually compromising the cases where all of us seem to agree. john k 17:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Why change the preference for the House of Prussia at 1700, the House of Saxony at 1815 (or is it 1806?) and so on? Septentrionalis 19:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't like leaning towards anglicization for, say, Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg or Dukes of Saxe-Gotha. Specialist usage is moving strongly towards German names for all German rulers. For the ones you're likely to encounter in more generalist usage, like Kings of Prussia and so forth, you still see the anglicized forms, but things like "Francis Frederick IV" and "Charles Theodore of Bavaria" seem purposefully archaicizing to me. Also, the articles on lesser German rulers tend towards the German form already. For instance, we have Ernst I, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Ernst II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, not "Ernest I" and "Ernest II". All the Grand Dukes of Baden and Hesse are at German forms. So are the Kings Ludwig of Bavaria. And so forth. I agree that changing preferences at random points in time can be silly, but I'm not sure how to do it - it's going to be odd and inconsistent at some point, no matter how we do it. And I would say that the Saxon rulers should probably be just German forms throughout. john k 20:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
August the Strong? Or do you just mean the non-electoral Saxonies? Again, I don't support Louis I of Bavaria, much less Lewis I of Bavaria; those are horrors too. Septentrionalis 23:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, Augustus the Strong is a special case, as he was also king of Poland. I wouldn't mind Johann Georg IV, Elector of Saxony or Anton of Saxony, though. Less sure about the Kings Frederick Augustus. Certainly Maurice is best known as Maurice, and not as Moritz. john k 00:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I thank Mr Kenney for initiating this discussion since I think that we are going over some good points. It does seem to me that we are returning to the general position of "most common form of the name used in English" (I think that it would be better to say "English-language published works"). The problem seems to me to be that there are a lot of wiki-editors editing articles on topics about which they know very little (of course, that is both the strength and the weakness of Wikipedia). They just don't know how scholarship refers to a particular prince because they've never read anything about him (but still feel competent to change the title of a wiki-article). So I agree with Mr Kenney that more guidance needs to be given in these conventions. I think that the solution of "lean towards English" or "lean towards vernacular" when there is not a decisive "winner" may be helpful. I'm presently involved with a debate about und/and on the page Thurn und Taxis; feel free to contribute. Noel S McFerran 20:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes Noel, that's the basic issue, I think. I agree that I would much prefer us to say "English-language published works" to "English", and I think Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) probably needs some overhaul (as does Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)) on the relationship between common names and use English, and so forth. I think I'd prefer a "lean towards vernacular" solution when there's not a decisive winner, because the vernacular is almost guaranteed to be used in at least some recent English-language sources, while the anglicized version has no such guarantee. But I think it depends on what language is involved. Languages less familiar to Anglophones tend to be more likely to be anglicized. john k 21:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I have doubts about "English-language published works"; I predict it will be used to enforce some local usage which has been preserved in translation. When Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden was straightened out, there was persistent argument that he should be called Gustaf Adolf the Great, because
  • the Riksdag had declared him so, right after his death (1634, IIRC) and
  • some quite specialized book in English had used the name in its title. Septentrionalis 23:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
That kind of nonsense comes through all the time. If we are clear that we mean "the whole array of english language published works" that would prevent such issues. john k 00:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thinking Big

In reviewing the recent discussion, the following ideas and suggestions occurred to me and I set them forth for discussion:

  1. Why are we so enamoured with the idea of the "most commonly used form" in English or any other language? I understand that it stems from the umbrella wiki guideline, but to me this rule non-sensically causes endless debate and ignores the beauty of Wikipedia's technological framework. Redirects (and disambiguation pages) are one of the greatest, and most underused, strengths of the technology. It means that we can apply consistent rules to the naming of pages/articles without regard to "the most commonly used form." Put redirects at every commonly used form (instead of arguing which is primary). This would reduce debate and make it easier for users. Inconsistency in personal naming conventions is one of the biggest frustrations to me as a user of Wikipedia. Without consistency, I have to use the search engine <rant omitted> to find people. Thus the aim of "most commonly used form" --- ease of finding, right? --- is defeated. That's why I agree that the current naming convention is "broken." The "most commonly used form" is a great idea in theory, but hasn't worked well in practice. So toss it and go with something practical that addresses the underlying purpose of the rule, i.e., ease of finding: consistency, redirects, and disambiguation pages.
  2. Instead of arguing about brackets, how about "John I, King of England?" Why is it so important to leave out the title? Why have one rule for monarchs and another rule for dukes? (And in the case of a medieval duke that you think is a sovereign, how do you determine which rule should apply? Make them the same and this problem, and all the discussion and grief it engenders, disappears.) Another advantage to this style is that a simple but different rule for consorts would make it very easy to distinguish between regnant and consort queens: "Elizabeth II, Queen of England" is regnant and "Queen Mary of England" is consort. (Though in point of fact I prefer birth names for both queens and princesses, especially historical ones, e.g., Anne of Austria rather than "Queen Anne of France." As long as the "Queen Mary" dab page includes a link to Princess Mary of Teck and lists all the relevant variations, and/or all the variations that clearly belong to her redirect to the correct article, that's good enough.)
  3. Consistent implementation of a rule (even if an arbitrary one) about using translations like Francis Joseph vs Franz Josef (I personallly prefer the latter) combined with redirects at all possible variations (and/or a dab page), e.g., Franz Joseph, with and without an ordinal, would eliminate much of the debate.
  4. The reason I came to this page was to find out (a) whether the naming convention for lesser people is "Albert VII, Duke of Mecklenburg" or ""Albert VII of Mecklenburg" (and why), and (b) whether I can change them to the "correct" form unilaterally, or do I have to propose it on the article's Talk page? I think I've found (a), but not (b). Honestly, if every change has to be agreed by committee, then I'm not going to be to contribute very much on this point.
  5. I strongly support JohnK's suggestion of a wikiproject to bring together experts and editors to discuss these issues, and to move forward with adding redirects, implementing whatever naming conventions we choose, adding template tags, and creating articles that don't exist yet. Someone please just do it! Laura1822 17:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. Why not dump "English usage" in favor of consistent rules? I agree that "most commonly used name in English" leaves numerous unanswered questions, both because we have no more authoritative way of ascertaining it than an ad hoc vote of those who happen to be editing the page during the same week, and because it is inconsistently applied due to the fact that Wiki has other rules and objectives that demand compromises (e.g. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is hardly actually called that by anybody -- including "works published in English" -- but "The Queen" or "Queen Elizabeth II of England" are unacceptable because they violate other applicable Wiki principles). I like your solution to improve matters by adopting a standarad format, sticking to it, and relying upon Wiki technology to get people to whatever they're looking for. Of course, that's exactly what "Firstname" "Ordinal number" of "Realm" is supposed to be, and despite all the tools, we still have inconsistency and edit wars. The reality is that some editors feel strongly about the namespace reflecting values they hold dear ("Use English", "Don't Institutionalize Anglocentrism", "Copy Scholarly Literature", "Wiki Has No Business Innovating", "simplicity, Simplicity, SIMPLICITY"). So we can review and tinker with broken conventions, but we will never fix them such that new editors won't unilaterally change articles and/or declare the convention a failure. Let's try anyway, but lower our expectations.
  2. Why not just use titles instead of making up format rules to imply rank? Because some editors deem titles "monarchy cruft", i.e. excessive deference; others consider them POV; others find them distractingly long; and there are disagreements over titles, nation names, and even particles. Again, those few who care about such things, care A LOT -- and will make it an issue, demanding that the agreed-upon rule be applied/ignored depending on the result they want.
  3. Why not set and enforce consistent rules, even if "arbitrary"? Because it's anti-Wiki. Wiki is inherently dynamic: Those who edited Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor yesterday, will be gone tomorrow, and tomorrow's editors bring different views and values, and will refuse to be bound by previous agreements. Thus, the best agreements are those which are 1. most intuitive 2. have the clearest rationale 3. rely least upon editors' having scholarly (or monarchical, or genealogical, or national, etc) knowledge and doing their homework before hitting the "Save page" key, and 4. are resilient enough to be ignored. "Nationalist" editors, if no others, will rebel against any rule that they consider insufficiently respectful of indigenous POV, and "republican" editors will delete what they consider "royalty-cruft", and finally "unilateralists" are simply confident that what they believe must be accurate, and are impatient with any process that obstructs their implementation thereof.
  4. Must every article move be approved by Wiki committee?
    • Obviously not. But take your pick: you can seek consensus in advance, risking that your position will be overruled, or you can fight an edit war later, risking that you'll lose and be really, really pissed off. Worse, if you feel free to make unilateral changes for what seems obviously right to you, why should you not be reversed by the next unilateralist? If you want to change the name of an article and its redirects, but don't want to announce your intention on the talk page first and wait a few days, chances are that 1. you can't imagine that anyone would not agree with you, so why frustrate yourself by exercising patience and restraint? or 2. you already suspect that someone will object and you figure a swift offense is the best defense. Either assumption is a classic recipe for an edit war. Announce, wait, move.
    • If you have to get every article move approved by committee, why wouldn't that discourage you from contributing to Wiki? Wiki is a committee. Get used to it. And let's get used to the fact that committee membership changes daily, and a quorum is whoever happens to speak up. If I can't work in that environment, I'll be frustrated and so will other editors. The real issue is whether I'm going to engage that committee before or after I've implemented a move. In the past, doing so beforehand wasn't a big problem, but now that there are so many editors, so much relevant history, so many policies/guidelines, and so much complication involved in fixing re-directs, the unilateralists are getting away unchallenged with less and less, and their frustration and everyone else's is increasing exponentially. The truth is that for most changes, no one cares; for a few changes people will be satisfied with a clear advance explanation; and for the cases where that isn't the case, the move should definitely be vetted beforehand anyway. Announce, wait, move. We're building an encyclopedia here: Why should its content be driven by contributors' desire for the immediate gratification of changing that encyclopedia instantaneously and without input? Wikipedia isn't a blog -- or shouldn't be. Lethiere 21:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. I agree, to a point. I think that in cases where the "common name" is arguable, we should probably default to the native form. But when common name is very clear, as it frequently is, I'd much prefer to stick with it. Aleksandr II of Russia would be incredibly pedantic.
  2. Yes, I've just discovered that the pipe trick now works for commas, and I think that, at least when disambiguation is necessary, this might be a good solution. Elizabeth II, Queen of England is a no-no, though, or we'll have hordes of Scots and Welsh upon us; and it ought to be John, King of England, not "John I," which he isn't called. I agree with you about queens, to a point. When a Queen consort's name is unique, and that is how they are best known, it makes sense to have them there. Queen Marie of Romania and Empress Elisabeth of Austria would be far superior to our current titles, I think. Queen Anne of France much less so (and, at any rate, that title is not unambiguous, as Henri I's wife was Queen Anne).
  3. Franz Joseph is the German name (Franz Josef appears to be an over-enthusiastic re-Germanizing), but otherwise I would agree that for German rulers, always using the German form would be fine. I'm much less sure about Fernando and Isabel. And what's to be done about someone like Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor? Calling him "Karl V" seems kind of perverse to me. I would prefer a system where we default to a native form, unless it can be demonstrated that the anglicized form is more common (as opposed to the opposite, which now seems to prevail). But I'm sure there are others (Septentrionalis?) who are less sympathetic to native names than I am, and I myself am highly ambivalent about the results that a consistent application of this policy would entail.
  4. Go ahead and move it - nobody will object.
  5. I think we need to work out the naming conventions here. We can only clean everything up once we know where we're actually supposed to be sending the redirects to, I think. john k 18:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
John, thanks for your responses.
  1. I'm trying to make a distinction between tranliteration issues and "The Most Common Form." IMO whether to use "Alexander" or "Aleksandr" is an argument about translation/transliteration, not about TMCF. TMCF is really about whether people refer to him as Alexander "of Russia," or "of All the Russias," or "Emperor of--" or "Tsar of" or "Czar of" (mix and match to find your favorite MCF).
  2. But over here in America, everyone calls Elizabeth "the Queen of England." No one says GB or UK or Commonwealth, just England. So that would be TMCF. No, I'm not suggesting that we allow ignorance to dominate TMCF-- instead I'm using this as an example of why TMCF works in theory but not practice. Re: commas. I didn't know that there was an issue with them and the pipe trick before. I've been scratching my head trying to figure out why anyone thought "Henry VII of England" was preferable over "Henry VII, King of England." (I trust this example is less controversial!) In any event I'm glad you agree with me because if I could change one thing unilaterally in the naming convention, this is it.
  3. Franz Josef is the current, and I think the original, spelling in Austria. Franz Joseph is a combination of English and German that's rather odd when one thinks about it. (And they always use Karl instead of Charles.) As for the others, I don't feel especially strongly whether we choose Ferdinand or Fernando (again, that's transliteration/translation); the point is, we can pick either one, and put a redirect at the other one.
  4. Yet User:Maed was blocked for doing that. How do I tell when it's okay to do it and when it isn't?
  5. How about we make "here" into a wikiproject?
Apologies to everyone about how the structure of this discussion is turning out-- I should have done it differently. Laura1822 20:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. Okay, I see where you're coming from here. "Emperor of all the Russias" would seem to be the most correct form for the Tsars after 1721. I have no idea what the most common form would be.
  2. Most common forms that are inaccurate and cause offense to large numbers of people tend to be avoided. I agree with you about commas.
  3. Franz Joseph is not a combination of English and German. check out de:Franz Joseph I. (Österreich-Ungarn), for instance. I've actually looked at various scholarly books in German, and they all call him "Franz Joseph." "Joseph" is a perfectly acceptable alternate German spelling - both "Josef" and "Joseph" appear in German names. Note also Joseph Goebbels, for instance. (On the other hand, note de:Franz Josef I. (Liechtenstein).) I have no idea about the "current spelling in Austria," but I've read a fair number of German sources that all use "Franz Joseph," with a ph. As to Charles V, indeed, the Germans call him "Karl V." The Spanish, on the other hand, call him "Carlos." The Walloons and Franche Comtoise call him "Charles Quint," the Flemish and Dutch "Karel," the Italians, "Carlo." He ruled over all these peoples, and arguably Spain, at least, is equally important with the Empire. My point here is that I don't like the idea of a one size fits all solution, where we either have to have "John Charles I" or "Nikolai II". I want to be able to have both "Nicholas II" and "Juan Carlos I," to match how these people are actually known in English.
  4. Maed was blocked for continuing to move tons of articles after people told him/her to stop. I'd say that when it involves clearly moving articles closer to naming conventions, and something as simple as moving X of Y to X, Duke of Y, you have nothing to worry about. I do it all the time when I come across articles that aren't at the right location, and I've never been blocked.
  5. The problem, I think, is that wikiprojects should not be used for major issues like deciding naming conventions. Once we have a guideline, a wikiproject is a great way to organize work for getting everything in order, but regular policy talk pages are the proper place to actually decide the guideline itself. john k 21:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: the wikiproject idea, I'v proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Royalty that it be converted into Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and serve as a base for at least some conversations related to this. john k 16:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for Monarchical titles

Here is one concrete proposal. Let's deal with this idea, and then go on to others.

The convention presently reads:

1. Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of monarchs, of modern countries in the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Edward I of England; Alfonso XII of Spain; Henry I of France.

I propose changing this to read:

1. Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of monarchs of modern countries in the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}". Examples: Franz Joseph I, Emperor of Austria; Alfonso XII, King of Spain; Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria; Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg.

Various other small changes would be necessary throughout the convention to conform with this change. We would remove section 5 about "monarchs whose rank was below that of King".

If such a change did have consensus, I suggest caution in wholesale page moves without discussion on particular pages. Just because the convention says one thing, doesn't mean that there can't be exceptions for particular reasons (although I can't think of any myself). I just want to caution the people who like to do page moves without discussion.

Please add your vote below:

  • Support as nominator. Noel S McFerran 18:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support uncontroversial surely. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. No ordinal where it is unnecessary (e.g. Victoria, Queen of England). - Kittybrewster 19:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, cautiously. This would involve moving a whole lot of articles. If we're also going to change other naming guidelines, I'd prefer that we figure out the full extent of the changes before we start moving pages. john k 19:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • A further comment. Does this mean we'll have Edward VII, King of the United Kingdom? I might suggest using "King/Queen of Great Britain and Ireland" for the monarchs between George III and George VI, and "Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," for Elizabeth II, or some other workaround. john k 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Erm wouldn't "Great Britain and Ireland" be anachronistic for post 1927 monarchs? In any case I think "King of the United Kingdom" is the only workable thing under this - "King of Great Britain and Ireland" just feels like called George W. Bush "President of America". Timrollpickering 20:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, no, this was precisely the style used between 1927 and 1953 - "King of Great Britain and Ireland," because the monarch remained King of Ireland (until 1949, at least) despite the United Kingdom no longer including all of Ireland. "By the Grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland King" was the style of George V after 1927, as opposed to "By the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King". Then in 1953 it was changed to "By the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland King" to account for the Republic's becoming a Republic. Beyond that, "United Kingdom" was not commonly used in non-technical contexts until after 1927. Articles like Princess Elizabeth of the United Kingdom is a lot closer to being bizarre than Princess Elizabeth of Great Britain and Ireland would be. But it's not terribly important either way. john k 21:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of far more than UK of course. - Kittybrewster 23:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Ack, we've been through this before. john k 00:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, definitely. Not an improvement on the present situation, and therefore not worth all the hassle of moving everything. Deb 20:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it would be an improvement. For instance, it is not particularly obvious why Frederick Augustus III of Saxony should be the article about the King, rather than the elector, of that name. john k 21:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, obviously you think it will be an improvement, otherwise you wouldn't have voted for it. But I don't have to agree. Deb 23:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
        • The point of my statement wasn't so much to indicate (again) that I think it would be an improvement, but to indicate an example of a way in which I think it would be an improvement. If you disagree that this would be an improvement, you obviously have the right to, but I don't see why you have to act like I'm an idiot in responding to me. john k 00:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support (and, to John, I'd imagine any proposal is going to involve moving a whole lot of articles). But I have a question: if we're actually going to put "King of X" or whatever in the article title, will we use the actual title when this isn't the same as the country? Will we have, for instance, "King of the Hellenes", "King of the Belgians", "King of Scots", etc., or will we just adapt what we do at the moment and put "King of Greece" etc.? And presumably we'll still have "X, Holy Roman Emperor", rather than "X, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire", so some alteration to the wording of the proposal would seem to be in order. Proteus (Talk) 23:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Both of these issues are already addressed in section 3 of the convention on Monarchical titles. Noel S McFerran 00:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what section 3 of the convention means in this context. The "King of Greece" example suggests that you are suggesting the second of Proteus's two options. I very much disagree with the idea of calling Louis Philippe "King of France", or having Mary I, Queen of Scotland. The former, in parcicular, is actively misleading. The current formulation of point 3 seems quite problematic to me, in that it refers to "King of the Hellenes" as being an "obscure official name of the state," and doesn't address the "of territory" vs "of people" issue at all, which is the real issue. To Proteus, I agree that any proposal would involve moving a whole lot of articles, but my point was that I don't want to change this rule, move all the articles, and then have us go back and modify the rules again. While I think this is a step in the right direction, I also think that there's some other parts of the current conventions I'd like to modify, and that I don't want to have to move a bunch of articles only to have to move a sizeable number of them again, or, alternately, to have the fact that we've moved a bunch of articles be a reason why we can't discuss any further changes to the conventions. john k 00:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the first of my options is much better. And my "support" vote is really for the general principle of "X, King of Y" for monarchs — I think I'd oppose any proposal explicitly forcing the use of incorrect titles. Proteus (Talk) 13:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Actually, I have thought that X of Y was a very bad shorthand for kings, as we faced with Alexander of Greece. Kings and so on can very well have the same "X, something of Y" format as lower monarchical life forms already have. Shilkanni 00:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, cautiously. In theory this ought to be clearer for people to understand giving the title rather than a generic of country - especially where that country is unknown or no longer existing. However I'd certainly like a pause so we can work through whatever unforseen problem this would cause :) Alci12 16:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Short names, actually usable in running prose, like Henry IV of France, are preferable. This may be a reasonable solution for cases like John of England, where (1) there is only one king of that name and (2) he doesn't use the Roman numeral I; but why generalize? Septentrionalis 18:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • An actual sample suggests that this isn't really true. The first 28 pages which link to Henry IV of France are evenly split between those that pipe the page name and those that don't at the first link, and all the <date> and <year> pages would look no worse with the proposed version. Most that do pipe it do so as [[Henry IV of France|Henry IV]], which would be marginally shorter as [[Henry IV, King of France|]]. If anyone can come up with a way to check all the pages, I'm all ears. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Laura1822 16:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support and hope it can be employed consistantly. Inge 13:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support, wanted this for ages. The X of Y format, meant to avoid ambiguity, systematically creates its own ambiguity (is Matilda of Scotland queen of England, or of Scotland?) and produces absurdities such as Olaf I of the Isle of Man. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 05:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Questions:
    1. What about monarchs whose title changed, for example Charles XIII of Sweden, who became king of Sweden in 1809, then king of Norway in 1814. Should it be Charles XIII, King of Sweden or Charles XIII, King of Sweden and Norway. Same thing with Oscar II of Sweden, but in reverse.
      Oscar II should definitely just be "King of Sweden." I'd suggest that all the Kings of Sweden and Norway should probably be just called "King of Sweden" in the title - this is how they would be commonly called in shorthand. But if we were to include Norway, I'd say it should be for the kings from Charles XIII to Charles XV. john k 14:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
      I think the kings of Sweden and Norway should be named with both countries since those were treated as two separate titles. The union was loose and the kings very much reigned as kings of two separate countries (the equality and details on each monarch's rule can alway be debated..).Inge 15:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
      Well, what about Christian VII, King of Denmark and Norway, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Glückstadt; Charles XI, King of Sweden, Grand Duke of Finland, Duke of Scania, Estonia, Livonia, Karelia, Bremen, Verden, Stettin, and Pomerania; Prince of Rügen? Charles I, King of England, Scotland, and Ireland; Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor, King of Hungary, Croatia, Dalmatia, and Bohemia, Archduke of Austria; Alexander I, Emperor of all the Russias, King of Poland, Grand Duke of Finland? Philip II, King of Castile, León, Aragon, Portugal, Valencia, the Two Sicilies, and Sardinia; Duke of Burgundy, Brabant, Luxembourg, Limbourg, Gelderland, and Milan; Count of Barcelona, Flanders, Hainaut, Namur, Holland, and Zealand, etc.; William III, King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxembourg? Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Saint Lucia, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Belize, and Antigua and Barbuda? The purpose of the territorial designation should be to identify the person, not to indicate the political status of all the places they ruled, because that can get very rapidly out of hand. I would suggest a rule that only one geographical designator be used for any individual. It's usually pretty easy to figure out the main one. Only a few generally confusing cases, like Vladislaus II of Bohemia and Hungary, come to mind. john k 15:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
      Your examples are extreme, but I guess you wanted to prove your point thoroughly. I was only giving my opinon regarding that particular question. Your examples relate to other scenarios and many seem to be "subsidiary" titles. Having two countries in the title might not be too much of a hassle. But I was merely expressing my opinon and won't fight this either way. Inge 16:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
      Sorry to be overwhelming. I wasn't meaning to attack you. This is an issue that was certain to come up, and I think it's necessary to address it. You just happened to have brought it up. As to the specific examples, some of them are probably clearly subsidiary titles. Others less so. Others certainly are not. There are people here who will insist on Elizabeth II's status as queen equally of however many countries it is, for instance. Certainly Philip II held all his kingdoms separately. Whether or not lesser titles are subsidiary is another question. William III's role as King of the Netherlands and as Grand Duke of Luxembourg were completely separate, for instance. So were George II's roles as King of Great Britain and Elector of Hanover (his seemingly equal title of "King of Ireland," on the other hand, was clearly a subordinate attachment to the Kingdom of Great Britain, while the title of "King of France" was purely notional, save for the Channel Islands). I agree that giving two kingdoms isn't unnecessarily onerous, but I think that once you start going down that road, it becomes very hard to draw a line on where to stop. The only examples I can think of where it becomes tricky are when the person was king of a smaller, less important country for a long while before they became king of a bigger, more important country. In such instances I might support double naming - Vladislaus II, King of Hungary and Bohemia; Henry IV, King of France and Navarre; James VI and I, King of England and Scotland. Sigismund III, King of Poland and Sweden might also fall under such a special exception. But these are very special circumstances that don't occur very frequently. With Henry IV, I think it's probably unnecessary, France being so much larger and more important than what was left of Navarre that the extra 17 years Henry spent as king of the latter probably still don't come close to nearing the importance of his rule in France. john k 17:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
      We don't do that at the moment, though, and for very good reasons. James VI and I, King of England and Scotland is an extremely unwieldy article title, and I think we should be avoiding things like that as much and possible. And, of course, exceptions (unless they're very clear) are generally a nuisance in conventions like this, as they necessitate discussion from article to article deciding whether someone fits into them or not, which tends to breed the sort of inconsistency we're specifically trying to avoid here. Proteus (Talk) 19:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
      I largely agree - that's why I suggested a one title maximum earlier. john k 19:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    2. What about Popular monarchy? Do we write king of the x (people) or just king of x (country). Carl Logan 13:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Definitely "King of the People," rather than "King of Country," imo. As I said above, calling Louis Philippe the "King of France" is out and out wrong. john k 14:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Definitely, ditto, as in "King of the Belgians" rather than "King of Belgium".Mowens35 14:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but kudos for being bold. To me, this brings up far too much to be clarified than what needs to be clarified with the present convention. Also, the articles are long and drawn out. I think we are fine with Name Ordinal of Place for all kings and emperors and should work on lesser sovereigns. Charles 20:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So what are we going to do about this? It's been sitting here for a week with no more talk or votes. I count 9 supports and 3 opposes — is that enough to count this as passed and start working on the rest of the system? Proteus (Talk) 19:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I'd have to go along with consensus, but there do seem to be a few queestions above that could turn into matters for dispute. Deb 12:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that we ought to clarify issues before going ahead. I might also suggest announcing this somewhere to people who don't normally look at this page, to see if we can get better buy-in. Given how long the current convention has stood, it would be best if a small group of us don't change it and leave everyone else entirely confused. john k 13:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm afraid - I just can't see Kings and Queens being X, King of Y - as per the above noted issues. Well done for being bold, but this alternative has no real merits over the current guidelines - they are fine as they are IMHO – DBD 13:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Undecided How about anything below an emperor and king has their title added (such as the Grand Dukes of Luxembourg, Electors, Archdukes... etc.) but kings and emperors go without as usual. I do have a problem though with some of the naming of queen-consorts, it's quite confusing sometimes. Gryffindor 10:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - seems unnecessary - both in objective and in work necessary to achieve it. Michael Sanders 11:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, it replaces a 'most common name' with a fraudulent 'formal name' - 'Louis XIII of France' is acceptable, because he is always non-technically referred to as such. But 'Louis XIII, King of France' - he's also King of Navarre, etc. Also, in this format, would you include house names (e.g. 'Rudolf of Habsburg, King of Germany')? Surnames ('Henry VII Tudor, King of England')? Birthplace designations ('Edward III of Windsor, King of England')? Michael Sanders 11:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related problem on Norwegian kings

I wholeheartedly agree that the naming should be consistent. We have a commonly agreed convention and we should stick to it. Now small groups may decide to go against that because they think a particular article is better suited with a different name. Several articles on Norwegian kings have been subject to individually suggested moves to "most commonly used name". Because they find it to be the scholarly most correct name. As a result Eric Bloodaxe was moved from Eric I of Norway and is AFAIK the only monarch article on wikipedia where the king's nickname is used in the title and where the title gives no clue that the subject is a king. As far as all the Norwegian kings are conserned the standard naming convention should apply. Several problems emerge if we want to use a nickname or a patronym: the title will not identify the subject as a king, some kings had more than one nickname, some of the nicknames have several english translations and the names have different spellings. All these variations can be adressed in redirects. It also blurres the division between the officially recognised Norwegian kings and the many pretenders. But above all we will end up with a mishmash of different types of names which will only serve to confuse those using wikipedia as a place to find information as opposed to those using it to deposit information. Inge 12:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Loads of similar articles: Charlemagne, Henry the Fowler, Edward the Elder, Charles the Simple, Louis the Blind, Suleiman the Magnificent, Alfred the Great, Congal Cáech, Ferchar Fota, Hywel Dda, and so on. Even for Norway, it's only true if you ignore the Baglers and Haakon Sigurdsson. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The inconsistancy is still very much there and some of the ones you mention are examples of that. The Baglers were pretenders and Haakon Sigurdsson was a Jarl (Earl). With the new proposal for a standard naming he would be Haakon Sigurdsson, Jarl of Norway thus removing any misunderstandings. There is a settled list of recognised Norwegian kings and those should follow a consistant naming. You may argue that a patronym might be more correct as that was probably what the king would have used himself or that a nickname would be desirable as that was what other people might have called the king, but none of them form a basis for consistancy and all of them create grounds for misunderstandings. Eric I of Norway or Eric I, King of Norway lets you know that this person was a king of Norway and he was the first one named Eric. There is no room for misunderstanding who or what he was or which particular person you are referring to. But above all we can't have a system where we as a community agree on a set of conventions on how to do things only to be overruled by a smaller minority on some individual articles. Inge 14:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
They would have been consistent had it been possible to agree whether Harald I of Norway should be Harald Fairhair or Harald I Fairhair. Five out of six editors who bothered to express an opinion favoured moving the article from Harald I of Norway, but couldn't agree where to move it to. There wasn't much point in going any further. As for "the community", how many people do you see discussing the question here ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well then you would have 55 kings named according to the common convention, 2 named with nickname and one or two with patronym. Other kings had nicknames and patronyms as well. How is that consistent? Historians have compiled a list of rulers of Norway and assigned ordinals accordingly in order to easily identify them. Should we disregard that work? The list might be critisised, but is overwhelmingly regarded as the best solution and is the one used by the Norwegian government and royal house. There are some speshial cases which need their own solution, such as the non-ruling child co-king Olaf Magnusson of Norway which has not been assigned an ordinal because he was not seen as a proper king by the historians. Eric I and Harald I are not two of those speshial cases. This is not a discussion over it is correct to call Eric I Eric Bloodaxe or not. This is a discussion on how we are to best name monarch articles on wikipedia. Should we have a common system or should each article be named according to the whim of any particular author or group of authors (or for that matter a Google count)?Inge 15:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
We should follow the methods of the appropriate experts, as we do in all things. Who'd be served by having an article on John III, Emperor of Russia ? Norwegian historians may use these numbers, but there doesn't appear to be much sign of English-language writers, rather than indexers, doing so. Apart from anything else, Harald Fairhair/Finehair wasn't king of Norway, and it doesn't really help anyone to include modern countries in the titles of pages on pre-national monarchs. This is a general point, applying to Scots, Poles, Norwegians, Swedes, Franks and all the rest. Of course, some might argue that we should follow indexers rather than authors. But isn't that what we have redirects for ? Harald Gille and Harald IV Gille should end up at the same place, as should Harold Gille and Harold IV Gille. Only one of those exists, and that ought to mean something. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S.: I don't know what the ratio would be, but it wouldn't be 55 to 2. If you adopted the Harald I Fairhair variant, it would be all the kings down to the Kalmar Union. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
If you have the view that Harald I wasn't king of Norway I can understand why you are so set on removing any reference to that from the article title. But you should at least recognise that that is your opinion. The issue is not clear cut one way or the other, but that view is not a good basis for a discussion on the topic at hand. When it comes to English language use I think it is valid to point out that if we were to rely solely on that kind of research or publications we would narrow our scope considerably and totally give in to systematic bias. But I think this boils down to the conflict between an historian's obsession on getting every possible information as historically correct as possible (according to the school he follows) and the encyclopedist's need for compiling imformation made available by historians in a format and form agreeable to all schools and as comprehensible as possible to lay readers. From a historians POV you can argue that Eric Bloodaxe is the historically most correct name, but from the POV that we are writing an encyclopedia (in a completely new format) it would be best to name articles regarding similar topics the same way. Inge 12:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As the proposal above seems to be going through I just realised it opens up a posibility for compromise: Eric I Bloodaxe, King of Norway and Harald I Fairhair, King of Norway. This way all the Norwegian kings follow the common convention and nicknames can be added if deemed apropriate. Inge 14:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Common convention? Nowhere else is {Name} {Roman numeral} {Epithet} used. Septentrionalis 04:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The common convention now is {name} {roman numeral} of {country}. And my view is that all Norwegian kings should follow the convention. If the convention is shifted, as proposed in the vote, to {name} {roman numeral}, {title} of {country} the articles should be changed accordingly. But the convention, allthough it has remained undisputed and stable for a long time, has lately been difficult to uphold with regards to some articles on Norwegian kings. Mainly because Angus proposes to move them. If I get it right his view is that an epithet should be used when naming Norwegian monarch articles. Now I believe that the spirit of the convention is to clearly identify the subject as a monarch of a spesific country and to disambiguate using numerals where they are available. In order to prevent the monarchs from being named in totally different ways and so we don't have to revisit this argument over and over I proposed a compromise which embodies both wishes even though I would prefer the standard. Inge 14:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have your say: moving Óengus I of the Picts

I am minded to move Óengus I of the Picts to something less original. My preferred solution is the banal Óengus son of Fergus (d. 761) for the reasons set out at Talk:Óengus I of the Picts. If you agree, disagree, or have anything to add, please speak up. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I see this didn't go through; but it encourages me to tone down the section involved. We don't actually use X of the Goths, and Angus opposes Z of the Picts. If anyone objects, feel free to revert. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maiden name rule, again

There have been various moves and discussions on Alix of Hesse and by Rhine, again. While I deplore this, it seems to be working itself out. However, in the process, some editors commented as though the "maiden name rule" for consorts were consensus, and expressed surprise that there was any further discussion.

All regulars on this page know perfectly well that it isn't consensus; some of us think it should be. Even those disagree on the nature and scope of the rule, and whether or not it is just a rule of thumb, like many guidelines.

I think we should state the actual status of the rule, and stop confusing the newbies, and will now edit to that effect. This is largely intended as a demonstration; if you revert, please bring the edit here. Septentrionalis 19:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you say the present convention is not consensus. It may be that there are alternative preferences, but it seems to me that no other individual solution has the same level of support. Deb 12:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It may well have a plurality, as you say; but that's a long way from WP:Consensus. Do you think the demonstration edit was wrong about where we are on any individual article? Septentrionalis 15:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
And I've temporarily move-protected the Alexandra page against moves by non-admins. I think it's okay for me to do that as I haven't been involved in the most recent "war". Deb 12:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
You may be able to unprotect now. Septentrionalis 15:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brunswick-Lunenburg, etc

Before anyone comments on Lunenburg, yes, I know, haha. Anyway, some time ago I commented on the varying territorial designations used for members of the "House of Brunswick". For instance, we have a lot of people at Brunswick-Lüneburg when they were members of the Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel line and so on. The discussion sort of died down a bit and is now archived. Are there any other thoughts as to how the situation can be rectified? It's also a great way to recategorize such people into house categories to future "maintainence" will be easier. Charles 02:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that we use whatever the territorial designation was - Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, Brunswick-Kalenberg, Brunswick-Grubenhagen, Brunswick-Celle, Brunswick-Göttingen, and so forth. It gets confusing (especially since Brunswick-Celle is sometimes called 'Brunswick-Lüneburg'), but I'm not sure there's much to be done about it) john k 03:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this definitely needs to be applied. Also, there is uncertainty over which dukes/princes of the sublines should have the titles appended to the end of their names, if at all. Do you feel that, for instance, *the* prince of Wolfenbüttel should have Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel appended to the end of his name? It makes me wonder if the margraves of Brandenburg need to be similarly renamed. Charles 05:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Er, I think that all agnates in the various Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel lines, emphatically including *the* Prince of Wolfenbüttel, should have "of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel" on their names. The head of the house should be "X, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel"; cadets who got no special title of their own (like Brunswick-Bevern) should be at "Duke X of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel" or "Prince X of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel"). I'm not sure what you are saying about Brandenburg. Don't we already do this for Brandenburg-Ansbach and Brandenburg-Bayreuth? Those were the only immediate lines. There's also Brandenburg-Schwedt - do we have any articles on them? john k 16:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also agree that the territorial designation is the best way to identify the individuals. Regarding Brandenburg, most of the Hohenzollerns are already at the correct titles as far as I can tell- see Category:Margraves of Brandenburg-Ansbach, Category:Margraves of Bayreuth, & List of rulers of Brandenburg and Prussia. Regarding Principality of Ansbach and Principality of Bayreuth, I could understand renaming them to Brandenburg-Ansbach and Brandenburg-Bayreuth, with the accompanying category change to Category:Margraves of Brandenburg-Bayreuth. Things seem ok with a quick glance at List of rulers of Brandenburg and Prussia. There was also at least one Margrave of Brandenburg-Küstrin (John, :de), but there is no article for him yet. Please let me know if there are any discrepancies (besides the nonuniformity between English/German names). Olessi 16:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian imperial naming

Where do we stand on this now? We have various categories that were being discussed: Grand Duchess by marriage and by birth, Empresses etc. I think this is something that needs to be tackled. There is great differences in the naming of various grand duchesses at least, some under birth name with or without titles and some under married names with or without titles and/or territorial designations. It's an absolute mess. I can't find the previous discussion, although I could be blind. I think we can start fresh and get it done though. Ideas? Charles 02:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

For empresses, I think the model Alexandra Fyodorovna (Alix of Hesse) has been settled upon. For the Grand Duchesses, It is, I agree, a total mess. For those born grand duchesses, I'd suggest we stick more or less with the general naming rules. For consorts, remove the title, but use patronymic. E.g. Olga Constantinovna of Russia. For those not consorts, include Grand Duchess: Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolayevna of Russia. For those who were grand duchesses by marriage, I'd suggest modelling off the rule for empresses, e.g. Grand Duchess Elisabeth Fyodorovna (Elisabeth of Hesse). I'd also suggest that when the same name+patronymic combination is held by different people, even if the naming convention gives different titles, they be additionally disambiguated by birth and death year, and that the main pages be or redirect to a disambiguation page. Thus Olga Nikolayevna of Russia would be a disambiguation page, in spite of the fact that that title should technically go to the Queen of Württemberg, while the daughter of Nicholas II should be at Grand Duchess Olga Nikolayevna of Russia (which should also be a disambiguation page, I suspect). We also ought to come up with standardized spellings for names and (especially) patronymics. john k 03:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that you've recounted your previous proposal, I agree with it. I do agree as well that the patronymics and the names ought to be standardized as well. For some reason I've also found Feodorovna to be more appropriate that Fyodorovna... Certainly, I think, Nikolaevna is preferable to Nikolayevna... Just how many forms do these patronymics take? Charles 05:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
As many as there are transliterations of Cyrillic, I suspect; and that's a lot. Septentrionalis 15:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I also prefer "Feodorovna", but I seem to recall that being a minority position in previous discussions. I have no especial opinion on "Nikolayevna" vs. "Nikolaevna", save that I detest "Nicholaievna", which seems to be used on numerous wikipedia articles. john k 16:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a guideline at WP:RUS, but it sensibly says that English usage should be followed where clear. If there is clear usage, it's probably Nikolaevna, but I think WP:RUS supports Nikolayevna otherwise. Septentrionalis 02:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
On Olga Nikolayevna of Russia: do we really need a dab page? If there are only two of them, let's have dab headers, and save everybody a click. Septentrionalis 15:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be a dab page, I think, because under the naming convention, that title would go to the Queen of Württemberg, but clearly the primary referent is Nicholas II's daughter of the same name. I'd suggest having general disambiguation pages at Grand Duchess Olga of Russia, Grand Duchess Tatiana of Russia, and so forth (although I'm not sure where that leaves Princesses of Russia). john k 16:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In terms of transliterations, I tend to dislike the "y's," so "Feodorovna" and "Nikolaevna" strike me as more aesthetically pleasing than the versions with y's, but I don't know. john k 05:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with you. To my eyes it seems to be more "complete", if that makes any sense. Charles 06:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Those -y- represent an important part of those names, it can usually as well be -i-. However, it is needed, in my opinion. Nikolaievna, or Nicolaievna, if you want to avoid -y-. Shilkanni 20:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care which it is, so long as we are consistent in transliteration; ya/ye/yo/yu what Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian says to use, so that's fine by me (but ia/ie/io/iu should be redirected). Ye is "ye", yo is "yo": Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia scores rather badly: Татьяна Николаевна → T-a-t-<nothing>-ya-n-a N-i-k-o-l-a-ye-v-n-a. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I prefer "Nikolayevna" to "Nikolaievna", and both to "Nicolaievna". As someone who doesn't speak Russian or read Cyrillic, "Nikolaevna" looks the best to me, and conveys the same phonetic information, but I'll defer to those with more knowledge. A comprehensive romanization scheme might be best for the patronymics, even if we anglicize the given names. john k 00:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we should be consistent. Either go with the full Russian names including the titles, or go with the name they were born with. About the transliteration we can talk later, but let's try to get some consensus first. Gryffindor 21:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Margraves of Brandenburg-Schwedt

What would be the correct article title for Christian Ludwig of Brandenburg-Schwedt? de:Brandenburg-Schwedt mentions three margraves of Brandenburg-Schwedt: Philipp Wilhelm (1688-1711), Friedrich Wilhelm (1731-1771), and Heinrich Friedrich (Friedrich Heinrich; 1771–1788)) as ruling margraves. This link mentions "Charles" (Karl), a son of Frederick William, Elector of Brandenburg, as an earlier margrave. This link mentions an "Albrecht Friedrich" (1711–1731) as ruling between Philipp Wilhelm and Friedrich Wilhelm. I haven't found any links starting that Christian Ludwig actually ruled Schwedt like his brother Philipp Wilhelm, but he definitely has been called the "Margrave of Brandenburg(-Schwedt)". Would this be a substantive or courtesy title? Olessi 00:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

To what extent did the others actually "rule" Schwedt? Schwedt was certainly a mediate, rather than immediate territory, and owed its allegiance to the Elector of Brandenburg, not to the Emperor directly. I'm not really sure beyond that how any of it worked. john k 05:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Substantive titles

Quick question here. It appears aristocrats with substantive titles are to be named with '{name}, {title}', whereas those without are to be named as '{title} {name} of {place}'. Is there a particular reason for this, and could we have some more clarification on what exactly constitutes a substantive title? (I have just moved Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria to Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria, and am very uncertain about this move now. The reasons I suggested as to why it may constitute a substantive title are that Ferdinand was the heir apparent to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and that Ferdinand was the head of his family. Feel free to undo the move -- in that case, I apologize in advance for all the double-redirects I've inadvertently created.) I appreciate any expertise that can be offered. theProject 05:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Franz Ferdinand was not the heir apparent (he was the heir-presumptive - he would have been displaced if Franz Joseph had had another son), he was never the head of the family (his uncle Franz Joseph was head of the family for his entire life), and he certainly did not rule over Upper and Lower Austria as a sovereign, which would be what a substantive "Archduke of Austria" would do. "Archduke of Austria" is a title held by all members of the Habsburg and Habsburg-Lorraine families, not just by the heir-apparent or heir-presumptive, like "Prince of Wales" or "Prince of the Asturias". So it's not a substantive title, and I'm moving the article back. john k 05:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice! By the way -- could it be explained why people without substantive titles are titled this way on Wikipedia? Thanks again. theProject 06:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Because he was "Archduke Franz Ferdinand"; any history book will so call him; but he wasn't "Archduke of Austria". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German Names of rulers

The kings of Württemberg are currently listed under their English equivalent names. I understand it is kind of unclear if not already anglizised rulers should be listed with their native names or the English equivalent. Ithink the native names should be kept, for not yet decided rulers. I think the translating of the names of rulers is an habit that was more common in the 19th and early 2oth century and isnt really necessary anymore.It is more correct to use native names, in the case of german its not really a problem Frederick=Friedrich for example. I am not asking for the change of people like Frederick the Great! Im more concerned about the more exotic minors. For example Württemberg.--Tresckow 03:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the English forms for all but the most extraordinary of cases. The "habit" is not one of the 19th and early 20th century, but one the applies to the monarchs of that era. Contemporary monarchs (such as Baudouin/"Baldwin" and Juan Carlos/"John Charles") are not anglicized but previous monarchs generally are. Charles 03:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Members of the House of Orléans

I was going through the template listing members of the House of Orléans and found it to be a complete mess. There are several different ways in which members of the house are named. For instance, some use d'Orléans and others include of Orléans. Some include Orléans before a substantive title and others do not. Some give the substantive title in French and others in English. Can we standardize the naming a little? I feel that all holders of the substantive titles, save for the head of the house at any given time, should be titled Prince Givenname, Count/Duke of Place. All others without substantive titles should be titled Prince(ss) Givenname of Orléans. What does everyone think? Charles 00:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree in general, at least about the descendants of Louis-Phillipe. In fact, I think we should do the same for the heads of the House; the numbers are PoV. (If Louis-Phillipe was king, the present Count of Paris pretends to be Henry VI.) For older Orleans, like Charles of Orleans, Prince would be an anachronism. (and do we really need it for Princes in pretence?). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
All of the substantive titles used in the House of Orleans are historical, having been previously borne by princes or nobles who belonged to different houses. Some of their titles, such as duc de Guise and comte d'Eu are more associated with other dynasties. Therefore the surname d'Orléans helps readers understand to which family a particular titleholder belongs. As for ordinals being POV, so long as Wiki accords Ernst August V, Prince of Hanover that name, it is hard to argue that the various Henris who have headed the Orléans should be denied the same form of disambiguation. Lethiere 22:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have clarified, I do mean the most recent and extant House of Orléans (mostly the descendants of Louis Philippe of the French), rather than any historic House of Orléans. The ordinals themselves are not in the article titles but only in the template. Those can be removed and I would not protest. I feel that the current Princes of Orléans (or of France, as some call them) should have Prince in the title. They are members of the dynasty, not heads of it. Charles 02:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to disagree again - for exactly the same reasons I have stated many times before. The kind of "standardization" that Charles wants CHANGES scholarship. An encyclopedia like Wikipedia collects scholarship; it does not alter it. Most of the people on the Orleans template are not known in English-language works as "X of Orleans"; more commonly they are known as "X d'Orleans" (with or without accent). "Count of La Marche" is just plain silly and shows the problems of translating titles which are not normally translated. Noel S McFerran 05:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Count of La Marche is not silly at all, nor is it an invention, if that is what you are thinking. "La Marche" is the designation. Count of the Marche would be silly, yes. We are including substantive titles for these people in a number of different forms, which itself isn't exactly scholarly when any other work would treat such people symmetrically as members of the same house and family. Using English forms of titles isn't changing scholarship either, it's saying exactly what these people are in terms relating to exactly what they are in French. Charles 08:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Count of La Marche may not be "silly" when used to refer to a nobleman who historically held that fief, but it is arbitrary when used to half-translate a title that does not refer to any title or territory actually possessed, now or ever, by the House of Orléans. When texts speak of pre-Orleans titleholders, La Marche was an important fief, the source of revenues, authority and territory that mattered, supporting the importance in French history of the family that then possessed it. But it is today a dynastic style recognized out of courtesy, not a sovereignty, nor a fief, nor a legal title belonging to or heritable by the Orléans agnate who happens to use it. Whereas speakers of French, Italian, Spanish and German are accustomed to the fact that a particle (de, di, von, zu) used to refer to a person may indicate a genuine territorial association (Prinz von und zu Liechtenstein, Princesse de Monaco) or merely a nominal association (Fürst von Bismarck, Prince de Broglie, Principe de la Paz), but most English-speakers rarely encounter "of" in someone's name, and so tend to associate it with royalty or a legally-held peerage. Thus translation of foreign nominal particles into "of" mistranslates the sense of the title, artificially elevating, e.g. "Baron François Xavier de Sambucy de Sorgue", an untitled, very junior cadet of a minor French family ennobled only in the 1800s, but who uses a courtesy title in French society that is widely understood as such, into "Francis Xavier, Baron of Sambucy of Sorgue", which sounds more like a legal peerage than it should. A title should be translated for ease of comprehension in compliance with Wiki norms, but the territorial designation should be as most commonly used, i.e. Count de La Marche. The Duke of Lorraine and the original Duke de Guise were brothers, but the "of" marks one as a continental sovereign and the "de" suggests that his younger brother was a nobleman in the peerage of France, which is historically correct. The kind of confusion found at List of rulers of Elbeuf results partially from failure to make such distinctions easier for readers to grasp. Leave particles associated with surnames untranslated unless customarily translated in modern English. Lethiere 22:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I must agree with Charles here; two dozen scholarly uses of Count of La Marche are pretty good; although most of them refer to the historic counts, not to the Orleans claimants. The corresponding search for comte de la Marche turns up primarily works or quotations in French, and that is indeed what the French Wikipedia should use. But there is a wider issue, for which I have made a new section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The members of this family use "d'Orleans" as a surname, not as a territorial principality. Giving the title "Prince of Orleans" to them is fine if one is a supporter of Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou; for the legitimists the Orleans are just (i.e. only) that, princes of Orleans. But today the members of the house of Orleans tend to style themselves in English "of France" (since they seem to ignore the fact this this is unhistorical). Even though I personally am a great admirer of Louis Alphonse, I don't think it is appropriate for this minority view to be the standard for a Wikipedia template (in the same way, even though I am one of the most active contemporary Jacobites, I don't insist on the Windsors being renamed in their Wikipedia articles). Noel S McFerran 21:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not aware that Orléans cadets use "of France" in their dynastic titles, in English or French. So far as I know, since 1883 only the children of Orléans pretenders (past or present) and of their heirs apparent and heirs eventual use that style. Cadets should be and are properly referred to (whether by French Legitimists or Orleanists) as "of Orleans" (d'Orléans). Coupled with the princely prefix and HRH, that is also the usage, between 1830 and 1883, of agnatic descendants of Louis-Philippe of France and their dynastic wives. Lethiere 00:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Princes in pretence

Should we use the courtesy title of Prince in any article about someone who is not accorded it by law or clear English usage?

We have articles on Charles Edward Stuart and Henri, comte de Chambord, although one of them pretended to a substantive principality, and the other was, in his childhood, actually, officially, and universally called Prince. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, the founder of the House of Orleans and his son, the Prince Regent, are Philippe I, Duke of Orléans and Philippe II, Duke of Orléans. We can discuss the accent elsewhere; but if we do not style them Princes, why should we do so for their very distant descendants? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
For the same reason that the current British monarch's second son is not found at Andrew, Duke of York but at Prince Andrew, Duke of York: noble titles were historically borne by royalty to distinguish them from one another, not to distinguish them from non-royalty. Everyone who had occasion to know of them at all already knew they were dynasts. It was not the custom in 18th century France for royalty to bear the prefix prince or princess. But that custom changed early in the 19th century, and the princely prefix is borne, by custom or law, by all royalty for more than a century now (unless a different prefix is used as substitute, i.e. archduke for Habsburgs, grand duke for Romanovs, infante for Braganzas, etc). Royalty are nowadays referred to interchangeably -- and confusingly -- by their noble titles and their dynastic prefix (e.g. "Prince Andrew" aka "the Duke of York", "Prince Willem-Alexander" aka "the Prince of Orange", "Prince Don Felipe" aka "the Prince of Asturias", "Princess Mathilde" aka "the Duchess of Brabant", and "Prince Henri d'Orléans" aka "the Comte de Paris"). Wiki readers today cannot be presumed to intuit that Anthony, Duke of Clermont-Tonnere is a nobleman (born 10July 1962) whose title is legally borne under current French law, while Henry, Count of Clermont was the assumed title of pretence of the man widely recognized as heir to the defunct throne of France and who, as such, is more intrinsically notable than a similarly-titled duke, despite only being a "count". Because it's much easier to confuse a royal dynast's title with that of an ordinary nobleman nowadays, it makes sense to help readers out by distinguishing the two in the commonly accepted fashion à la Prince Andrew, Duke of York. Lethiere 22:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "Early in the nineteenth century"? When? Under Napoleon or under Charles X?
Neither and both. Revolutionary France abolished titles of nobility, and established (in 1791, only to abolish it -- along with the monarchy -- a year later) that dynasts of the Royal House would bear the title Prince français (Napoleon would give the same title to his dynasts in 1804); until then, they were prince du sang royal de France but this was a rank, never a title, because none was considered necessary -- for the exact same reason that in the Commonwealth monarchies Elizabeth II is not referred to as "Queen Elizabeth" but as "the Queen", and her daughter is not "the Princess Royal Anne of the United Kingdom" but "the Princess Royal": there being only one monarchy, one monarch, and one royal family, such distinctions had not traditionally been considered necessary. This was generally true of monarchies until the late 1600s, when it became fashionable for members of foreign dynasties to flock to the court at Versailles. As a result of the fact that these princelings often came from Germany (princes of Brunswick, the Palatinate, Hesse, Nassau, Leiningen {Linange}, Saxe-Lusatia {Luzace}, Wurttemberg {Montbéliard}, etc) where there were numerous reigning families with widely varying titles, title inflation occurred in France, as can clearly be seen in Père Anselme's histories of the royalty and nobility of France: the previously unknown style of "le Prince Firstname" gradually became prevalent in the houses of France's princes étrangers (Lorraine-Guise, Rohan, La Tour d'Auvergne, La Trémoille, Monaco, etc) over the use of noble titles such as "comte de La Tremoille" which could, by custom, be assumed by any noble, including those who lacked any legal title at all. It was inevitable in this environment that the quaint French habit of addressing the King's younger daughters as "Madame Firstname" and the King's eldest brother simply as "Monsieur" did not survive when the ancien régime rolled back the clock in 1815 (nor was the 1791 law restored). But strictly speaking, under both the restored Bourbons and the reigning Orléans, the prefix of "Prince/sse" never became official -- but became universal nonetheless: check the Almanach de Gotha, Libro d'Oro and the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, the most widely-accepted authorities on European titles, all of which accord the princely prefix to members of reigning dynasties retroactively, even when (as in France, Denmark, Greece, the UK until 1864, and all the Balkan monarchies), such titles were traditions, never matters of law. That is because those reference works (popular with diplomats precisely so that, e.g., a retired, self-made American millionaire appointed Ambassador to Luxembourg could quickly learn how to avoid faux pas that he cared nothing about, but which his social-climbing wife would give him hell over!) grasped that in a modern world that understood less and less the distinction between royalty and nobility, the distinction needed to be highlighted, so that, as Wiki has also found, that which is used and practiced should not be overlooked in favor of what is pedantically correct. All of these folk are considered, referred to and addressed as prince, although their technical right to that title may or may not be valid. Lethiere 01:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
More importantly, we don't use it in the titles of articles about Princes of the Houses of France from the late nineteenth century either; see Napoléon Joseph Charles Paul Bonaparte. None of these are recognized by the present laws of France, even to the extent of exiling them; why should we?
Our naming conventions require the "most common name used in English", even when inaccurate (as it is here: the correct and legal surname of the Imperial Bonapartes has been "Napoléon" since 1806-- not Bonaparte). But that's for ease in locating articles. Readers, however, come to an encyclopedia to learn what they didn't know already about the subject, including accurate titulature. Wiki's articles are notoriously inconsistent on the use of titles in articles, which is what this guideline should enable to be fixed if we can ever agree on what to fix: Right now, at least two pretenders who don't actually seek restoration of monarchy (since their dynasties' realms haven't existed on a map for nearly 150 years) are even accorded styles in Wiki as if they are reigning monarchs -- Ernst August V, Prince of Hanover and Archduke Sigismund, Grand Duke of Tuscany!!! French republican law, by the way, does legally recognize dynastic titles, if inherited rather than assumed. The lawsuit brought in 1987 by the comte de Clermont against the use of the title of pretence, Duke of Anjou, by his cousin, the French Legitimist pretender Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou in 1987 lost because the House of Orléans lacked standing to challenge a particular title to which they never held a legal right, not because France does not recognize royal titles (although, in fact, duc d'Anjou is a titre de courtoisie, never legal in either branch of the Bourbons who now use it). Wiki should accord or explain titles that are widely known, used, claimed or widely attributed to dynasts and ex-dynasts, because that is the kind of information a reader would expect to find upon looking up that dynast in an encyclopedia. Lethiere 01:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree we should follow common usage; and we do: the common usage, and what the reader expects, is "comte de Paris" and "Count of Paris", not Prince. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The reader expects entries on people who are notable for being royalty to be identified as such by unambiguous terms like emperor, queen, and prince. Lethiere 06:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If we do it for the sons of the House of Orleans, do we do it for the legitimists/Carlists? Are they "royal dynasts"? Let's not go there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course we should, except where the title of pretence makes it clear that the subject under discussion is royalty rather than nobility. Nobody disputes that members of the Carlist branches are dynastic princes, even though their claim to the Spanish throne is disputed. The Segovia/Cadiz branch is more debateable, because the King of Spain only recognizes the French Legitimist claimant as a cadet of the Spanish Bourbons under the style "His Excellency don Luis-Alfonso de Borbón y Martínez-Bordiú". More usual is, for example, Prince Nikola of Montenegro (in September his Wiki bio was wrongly moved from "Nikola, Prince of Montenegro" to "Nikola, Crown Prince of Montenegro": Since crown prince is only attributed in reputable dynastic chronicles to heirs who have actually borne it under the monarchy, and Prince of Montenegro ceased being suitable 3 June 2006 when it became an independent republic, "Prince Nikola of Montenegro" or "Prince Nikola Petrović-Njegoš" are the only available titles he seems to have been actually known under). The compromise I suggest Wiki adopt is that only when a title of pretence is below prince or duke (since these titles have historically been borne by sovereigns and dynasts, as well as being the most common titles of pretenders), should the princely prefix be inserted. Thus Jean of Orléans, duc de Guise and Maria Emanuel of Saxony, Margrave of Meissen, but Prince Juan of Bourbon, Count de Montizón, and Prince Henri of Orléans, comte de Paris, with exceptions where a pretender is so well known by a specific name in English that Wiki should retain that usage, e.g. Don Juan, Count of Barcelona and Henry, Cardinal York. Lethiere 01:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
An encyclopedia doesn't come up with arbitrary rules of its own; it follows what the scholarship in the area does. Wikipedia doesn't "recognise" princes; it merely summarizes what scholarship says about people. If the scholarly record generally calls somebody a prince, then so does an encyclopedia. If not, it doesn't. Noel S McFerran 03:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Fine; what is the scholarship? I looked for scholarly references to the Orleans claimants, and found nothing. Prince Andrew, however, is easy to find. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
But where did you look, ie in what scholarly references? Online? Or at a public or research library, ie books about members of the Orléans family, etc? Scholarly biographies and histories would seem to trump sources found solely online. Frankly, in many instances, royalty, minor or otherwise, is a scholarly subspecialty best covered in books by specialists in the field.Mowens35 20:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I looked at scholar.google.com, since I was primarily looking for English uses of Comte de La Marche. It is, however, the responsibility of those who claim sources to identify them. What scholarly texts on the Orleans pretenders? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current royal peeresses

Just had a thought - why is "The" present in the titles of Camilla, Sophie, etc., but no "The" in their husbands? If the definite article is there to signify their being the present peeress, why not the same case for Charles or Edward? – DBD does... 20:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For women, the "The" is necessary to differentiate them from any possible former holders of that title. For men, there can never be any such ambiguity. (Once the Earl of Wessex, always the Earl of Wessex) --Ibagli (Talk) 15:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it necessary? We have an elaborate system for distinguishing the present Duke of York from all previous Dukes of York; why won't this work for the Duchesses? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Dukes of York don't lose their titles when they get divorced or widowed. That's the differences. Deb 21:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think (a) it's completely unnecessary and (b) it looks horrible. But it seems I'm in a minority. Proteus (Talk) 22:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wholeheartedly agree.
I believe, Mr Anderson, that you misunderstand slightly - Sarah Ferguson is not the Duchess of York - her being the duchess lapsed upon the divorce - "Sarah, Duchess of York" (thus, and exactly thus) is merely a courtesy style for a divorced peeress. – DBD does... 00:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • My error. But I remain of the position that this is where she should always have been. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, we went to the current naming system as recently as the end of 2005 - see the last archive for the full debate, which culminated in a proposal being accepted. Should we really be having the argument again so soon? Deb 12:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Consensus can change. As PMA said, [t]his is an encyclopedia, not a social secretary: the question is dull in the extreme, and indicative of the narrow, pedantic focus of this supposedly broad guideline. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I expected someone to come up with that comment. But the point is that several of the people who are raising the issue now were involved in that last debate. I would therefore at least suggest that people who have something to add should look at archive #9 first so as to familiarize themselves with the issues rather than going over the same ground again. Deb 23:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm so happy not to have disappointed you. Perhaps you'd want to involve a rather broader group of editors in any future discussions. I agree that it's difficult to get a huge input into things like this, but if you have any suggestions, short of kidnapping editors, or relating it to Star Trek episode naming somehow, I'd be interested to hear them. Let me make a simple, and bold, proposal: this guideline is redundant given the existence of WP:NAME, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:NAMEPEOPLE. It should be marked as historic, with an admonitory essay prepended recounting the evils of m:Instruction creep and feeping creaturism. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with PMA and Proteus - I'd much prefer Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Katharine, Duchess of Kent, Sophie, Countess of Wessex, and so forth. There is no confusion or ambiguity about who is being referred to, and this would seem, at any rate, like the obvious way to refer to these people. Also, we don't use this form for other peeresses by marriage - see for instance Natalia Grosvenor, Duchess of Westminster and Fortune FitzRoy, Duchess of Grafton. Why should royal peeresses be treated differently? I'm not sure what to make of Angus's comment - names of royals and peers and so forth are complicated, and some kind of naming convention is in order. Whether the current one strikes the right balance, I don't know, but jettisoning the very idea of such a naming convention seems odd to me. john k 19:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The current convention was created to try to clear up confusion between the current wives of royal peers (The Duchess of Cornwall, The Countess of Wessex, etc.) and the divorced wives (Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York). I am not sure why the convention was never applied to non-royal peeresses. The old convention had no difference between the two. Now, to be sure, the information is included in the article text, but this was decided to be an easy way to have the information up front. I agree with John, it might not be the correct way to handle it (even thought I supported it), but until a better way is found, I don't know how else to handle it. Prsgoddess187 19:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not sure I see a need for such a distinction, and I certainly don't remember any confusion when we had both divorced and current wives at X, Duchess of Y. As long as the text of the article makes their marital status and correct style clear, I see no reason why titles can't be ambiguous. (To make a simple analogy, no one complains that the articles Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr don't make it clear from their titles which one was beheaded and which one survived.) Proteus (Talk) 20:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that there really is much difference in the treatment of royal and non-royal peeresses, either here or in the "real world". We did have Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire (who was divorced) until someone moved it -- I can't quite remember what the reasoning was behind that. However, in general we have relatively few entries for non-royal peeresses (particularly divorced ones) and the surname is really the key to it. In practice, the naming tends to be a bit random, depending on whether their notoriety comes from their marriage or from something else, eg. Marion Stein. With the royal family, a precedent has had to be set because people know these women and have to know how to address them. It's not such a big issue for other peeresses. Deb 21:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire wasn't divorced, by the way. Proteus (Talk) 21:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
My mistake. That explains it, then. Deb 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe she was moved to include her surname, just as we call her husband William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire; I have no particular opinion on this decision. Her successor, who was widowed, is under Elizabeth Hervey, not Elizabeth Cavendish, dowager Duchess of Devonshire. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, and that's my point about the non-royal peeresses. The royal ones don't have a surname. Actually, it was me who created Elizabeth Hervey, and I'm still not sure whether I put her at the right place. The fact is that she is much better known as Lady Elizabeth Foster, but she also wrote novels (I think - I'm still trying to check up on that one) as Elizabeth Hervey. Deb 12:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Margaret of Parma

There is a proposal to move this to Duchess Margaret of Parma. Since this name is not English usage (I've never heard it before, and scholar.google.com gets one hit, which may be spurious), we may want to consider how this fits into this policy if it is not moved.

In any case, come and comment! Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dauphins

Recently there has been a lot of moving, most of it undiscussed, of the articles for the French dauphins. The disambiguation page has also been moved several times and is (currently, but who knows for how long) located at Louis, Dauphin. What do we properly name all of these dauphins? Were some better known by ducal titles? I think this needs to be clarified. Who knows how many triple and double redirects have gone unnoticed from the high volume of recent moves. Charles 00:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like "Louis-Ferdinand" for Louis XV's son, who I've never heard referred to that way. Most of the others seem adequate. john k 01:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Charles and move the article back to Louis, Dauphin of France (disambiguation), the current title is awful. The current format for some of the articles such as Louis-Joseph, Dauphin of France seems fine to me. What exactly was the problem, is it because the last name was added as well? I don't think that's necessary. Gryffindor 10:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all, there was one man whose name was only Louis, Dauphin of France (the son of Charles VI). I can't find any non-wikipedia-based references to him ever being known as 'Duke of Guyenne' (a title he received at the same time as becoming Dauphin, so he wouldn't be called that, just as you wouldn't list the current Prince Charles as 'Duke of Cornwall'). Then there are Louis-Ferdinand, Dauphin of France and Louis-Joseph, Dauphin of France, who are disambiguated by their names (I did suggest on the Louis-Ferdinand discussion page that they could be disambiguated by dates, but cfvh didn't bother to reply). Then there are also the various people who owe their article names to their 'most common names' (and I'm seriously considering changing Louis, Grand Dauphin to Louis, Dauphin of France (1661-1711) - it's one thing to title his son's article as Louis, Duke of Burgundy, because the man is always so called, and was such for most of his life - but 'Grand Dauphin' is merely a nickname) that could be listed as 'Dauphins of France'. As for the new title, it is such because a person might also be searching for one of the Dauphins of Auvergne. Michael Sanders 11:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
In fact, decided - Louis, Grand Dauphin is now Louis, Dauphin of France (1661-1711). The old name seemed to violate title rules, and since Charles the Bold is Charles I, Duke of Burgundy... Michael Sanders 11:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Michael, for Louis, Duke of Guyenne, I don't see any reason to assume that the way people were styled in the 16th to 18th centuries applies to the early 15th century. That "Dauphin" would have superceded other titles later does not mean it would do so then. But I don't know - a reference would be useful, either way. As to Charles I, Duke of Burgundy, that article title is a travesty, and certainly shouldn't be used as a model for other articles. john k 16:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I know that Charles VII (who also held some sort of ducal title) was referred to as Dauphin - indeed, Joan of Arc referred to him as such even when he was technically King (but uncrowned). As for Charles the Bold, I don't see any problem with the current article title - particularly as he is also referred to as 'Charles the Rash' (just as Louis, Grand Dauphin was misleading - le Grand Dauphin means 'the Big Dauphin', not 'the Grand Dauphin' or 'the Great Dauphin', both of which imply 'grandeur' of spirit, force of arms, etc). Michael Sanders 16:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't really care about the Grand Dauphin, and you are, of course, right a bout Charles VII. On the other hand, Charles the Bold may occasionally be referred to as "Charles the Rash" (which is, indeed, a better translation of the French Téméraire), but the name Charles the Bold is so predominant and so unique that I think it should be used for the article. john k 20:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we're getting side-tracked here - does anyone have any problems with Louis, Dauphin as the disambiguation page for all men named Dauphin and Louis, and are the titles of the articles led to by that page acceptable? Also, are Louis, Duke of Burgundy and Louis, Duke of Brittany acceptable titles for those men? I've seen the Duke of Burgundy referred to as the Dauphin, and occasionally as le Petit Dauphin - a flawed soubriquet, I believe - but predominately as 'Louis, Duke of Burgundy', I don't believe I have ever seen the Duke of Brittany referred to as the Dauphin in passing (I may have seen references to him becoming Dauphin on his father's death, but don't hold me to it), and they were of course Dauphin very briefly; on the other hand, it is the highest title the two held. What does the policy dictate there? Michael Sanders 00:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
As I only have time to comment briefly (I will comment on the rest later), I do have a problem with Louis, Dauphin. We don't have princesses named Alexandra at Alexandra, Princess. It should either be (and wait, discuss it first, don't just move it) Dauphin Louis or it should be split into Louis, Dauphin of Auvergne and Louis, Dauphin of France. Furthermore, there is no confusion as to the use of "Grand" in English. Charles 02:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In English, would you describe someone as Grand if you meant big or large? Michael Sanders 13:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, I don't believe I have ever seen Dauphin placed before the name - it is always after. But I would see no major problem with moving it to Dauphin Louis. Michael Sanders 17:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer "Dauphin of France". john k 14:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much sense it makes to have this conversation. Michaelsanders just goes ahead and changes things. He doesn't seem to understand that the goal is consensus. I reverted one of his name changes because I thought that this issue was still under discussion. But he just changed it back, since clearly he believes that his opinion is the only one which counts. Noel S McFerran 22:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It is incredibly annoying and it needs to be fixed. Charles 23:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What is incredibly annoying, and needs to be fixed? Compliance with rules regarding titles? Desire to properly disambiguate names? There's nothing that requires fixing. Personally, what I find annoying is editors who complain about issues, and who then fail to make constructive suggestions when it is clear that they won't get their own way (you still haven't suggested a title you would think appropriate for the son of Louis XV). Nor did I see any point in continuing this discussion - or that on Louis-Ferdinand - when it clearly wasn't going anywhere, because you preferred complaining to making constructive suggestions. Michael Sanders 23:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have separated the disambiguation pages into Louis, Dauphin of France (disambiguation) and Louis, Dauphin of Auvergne (disambiguation). Charles 16:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shortcuts

Any objection to making the "official" shortcuts for this page WP:NCNT and WP:NC(NT)? Olessi 18:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

None here. Charles 04:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I created the redirects and added the guideline header to the page. Olessi 20:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French princes revisited

Earlier I started a discussion about the naming of members of the House of Orléans (specifically of this house) and other members of other French lines. Currently, there are many forms being used, some in English, some in French and some as mixtures of both. In addition, some variously include the title of Prince before a name while others do not. Some use of France, some use d'Orléans or of Orléans. Furthermore, some of the women who married into the family are variously identified by their full premarital title, by their marital title, or a mixture of both (e.g. Infanta NN, Duchess of X or just Infanta NN of Spain). The last problem seems to pop up in many royal families represented here on Wikipedia, but that's another discussion...

I think a move needs to be made to fix these forms and bring them into line with an identifiable convention. My personal opinion is to use the convention that is used for all other royals. Dukes, counts, etc of the royal family should be titled Prince NN, Duke/Count of X (in English). I don't think d'Orléans or of Orléans needs to follow the forename. Heads of the house after the monarchy can drop the title of Prince and just have their title appended to the end of their name (e.g. NN, Count of Paris), as is done with all other pretenders on Wikipedia. Princesses who do not qualify for any other title (marital or otherwise) should be titled Princess NN of Orléans.

The original Bourbon line is different, as there really was no title of Prince or Princess as far as I can tell (it was a rank, not a title; prince du sang) while the House of Orléans is frequently attributed the title of Prince or Princess. Therefore, members of this house don't necessarily need the title of Prince or Princess preceding their forenames although any titles should be appended to the end of the names in English (e.g. Duke/Count of X...). Princes and princesses of sub-branches (those using designations derived from their father's title) are an issue as I don't quite understand if prince or princess should be used in front of their names.

So, in summary, this is what I feel should be done:

  • House of Bourbon-Orléans:
    • Princes and princesses without ducal/comital titles: Prince(ss) NN of Orléans (unless under another convention due to marriage)
    • Princes with ducal/comital titles: Prince NN, Duke/Count of X
    • Princesses by marriage: Whatever the existing conventions are, which probably need clarification
    • Pretenders: NN, Duke/Count of X
  • House of Bourbon:
    • Princes and princess without ducal/comital titles: NN of France (unless under another convention due to marriage
    • Princes and princesses without ducal/comital titles taking a surname/designation (X) from their father: (Prince(ss)?) 'NN of X
    • Princes with ducal/comital titles: NN, Duke/Count of X
    • Princesses by marriage: Whatever the existing conventions are, which probably need clarification
    • Pretenders: I think these are all correctly titled

After this, I think there can be discussion about the Bourbons of Spain. Charles 10:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Examples would be helpful; for example, do you mean this to apply to the eighteenth-century Dukes of Orleans? (Discussion above suggests not, but be clear...) In general, as a matter of WP:UE, I prefer of Orleans and Count of Paris, Count of Chartres. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
"Count of Paris" is not very frequently used - most English books I have seen would use "Comte de Paris," and this has been the standard form for a long time. See this google news archive search, which gives the New York times referring to the 19th century Comte de Paris as, well, "the Comte de Paris." There's also Google Scholar. Nearly three times as many hits as for "Count of Paris," and a large percentage of the hits for "Count of Paris" are for the 9th and 10th century counts. This is not some kind of newfangled hatred of English - the French form has been standard in English since the 19th century. Beyond that, I'll just note that there is, in fact, absolutely no current convention for princesses by marriage, so yes, that does need to be clarified. At any rate, I'd support French forms of titles (and names) from at least the 18th century onwards. john k 14:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think English is preferable in cases such as this, but do you agree that the forms in general are alright (regardless of the language)? Charles 16:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The forms are fine, with the exception of the issue of language. "Count of Paris" strikes me as being similar to John Charles I of Spain - a needless and awkward anglicization. john k 16:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Language, to me, has only ever been an issue of given names. Of course, we do not call the Spanish king "John Charles", just as we would not call the Orléanist pretender "Henry". However, the title itself is a different issue. I shudder to think that we would have an article titled "Kaiser Wilhelm". Charles 16:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Wilhelm II, German Kaiser would not seem like a self-evidently terrible title. But historically, French titles have been left untranslated far more than German ones. I think we should reflect this. john k 16:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Pmanderson, I am speaking chiefly of the issue and descendants of Louis Philippe who constitute the most recent House of Orléans. The rest fall under the original House of Bourbon. Charles 16:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, another objection: only fils and filles de France without other title should be at "N of France." Others should be at "N of Orléans," or "N of Anjou," or "N of Bourbon" or what not. john k 16:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is true, I should have stated it above under "Bourbon". I have added my idea of it. I don't know if "Prince" or "Princess" would apply in such a case. Charles 17:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I find it laudable that Charles is trying to find a solution and a format. I agree with his proposals, should a particular case be problematic, we can always reconvene. Gryffindor 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Gryffindor! Have you any particular thoughts on the use of English vs French? As stated earlier, I find English to be preferential. I feel that the French titles can stay for non-royal/non-Bourbon French nobles but that members of the House(s) of France should have English titles. Charles 14:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you provide some sources in English that refer to the "Count of Paris" when referring to one of the three pretenders since 1848 who have been known by that title? john k 22:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
There are a comparable number of results in a book and scholar search (I added Orléans to avoid the old, old counts). A search of "comte de Paris" gave me a number of French language results. All in all, I would say that there are enough results to support the English usage of the title. The searches were "Count of Paris" + Orleans and "comte de Paris". Charles 23:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I will concede that both forms seem to show some usage in English. I believe, though, that our difference on this is basically philosophical, rather than based on disagreement about the empirical facts. My preference is to anglicize only when the anglicized form is obviously predominant, and otherwise to stick with native forms. Your preference appears to be to use the anglicized form whenever that form is not entirely unnatural. We'll have to agree to disagree over which is preferable, but we still need a way to figure out how to decide which to use in article titles. I'm open to suggestions. john k 02:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Charles has made the following suggestions, however he hasn't shown that all of these suggestions are common English usage, or even English translation of common French usage (I'm not arguing against all of them, merely saying that there should be some precedent for what we do - and that we should know what that precedent is):
  • House of Bourbon-Orléans:
    • Princes and princesses without ducal/comital titles: Prince(ss) NN of Orléans (unless under another convention due to marriage)
    • Princes with ducal/comital titles: Prince NN, Duke/Count of X
    • Pretenders: NN, Duke/Count of X
  • House of Bourbon:
    • Princes and princess without ducal/comital titles: NN of France (unless under another convention due to marriage
    • Princes and princesses without ducal/comital titles taking a surname/designation (X) from their father: (Prince(ss)?) 'NN of X
    • Princes with ducal/comital titles: NN, Duke/Count of X
1. A Google search shows that "House of Orléans" is far and away a more common designation than "House of Bourbon-Orléans".
2. There is little precedent in the scholarly literature for the usage "Prince NN, Duke/Count of X". This is a Wikipedia invention which needs no further encouragement. It makes no sense for Sweden or the UKGBNI; let's not extend it to another country. Noel S McFerran 03:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Married princesses

Currently, the conventions are unclear as to how to title princesses who marry into other families and who gain other titles. I can think of a few categories that ought to be discussed:

  • Princesses who married cadet/junior princes
  • Princesses who married cadet/junior princes bearing substantive titles
  • Princesses who married sovereigns below the rank of king
  • Princesses who married pretenders
  • Princesses who married nobles bearing substantive titles
  • Princesses who married nobles with non-substantive titles
  • Women of noble and less than princely rank who married princes

Of course, there may be more cases. Any ideas? Charles 16:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure various things have b een proposed in the past. I'm not feeling up to think about it at the moment, but perhaps I'll come back to it. It's a general mess. john k 16:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

We should either go with their pre-marital name and title, or go with what they became when married. I agree it's a mess, maybe it has to be decided on a case-by-case basis? Gryffindor 09:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the last statement: "maybe it has to be decided on a case-by-case basis". The most general convention overall is "use the most common form of the name used in English". We do this with women who were not born princesses. If they are best known by the name with which they were born, then that's their article title. If they are best known by another name (usually a married name), then that's their article title. Wikipedia shouldn't invent names for people based on some regulated system.
The problem comes with less well-known individuals where there is little written about them. But then, the question should be: is it appropriate for an encyclopedia to have an article about a person summarizing the incredibly little which has been written about that person? Noel S McFerran 13:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marie Antoinette of Austria

I see that several of us have voted to move this to simple Marie Antoinette. Ny only reason for disagreeing is that, if the "maiden name convention" has any value, it should be applied here - it is clear what House she is from. If it has no value, we should dump it. Which? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the naming conventions are to be used when there is no overwhelmingly common or famous name for a royal. Indeed, there are conventions about common names as well. Every rule has notable exceptions. Marie Antoinette is one of them. If you notice, I am a fervent supporter of the naming conventions, but I also recognize when an exception is to be made. Charles 20:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Then we should add a note to that effect to the section on Past Royal Consorts; we should document what we actually do. At the moment we imply that X of Y is an exception to most common name (as it certainly would be for Elizabeth of Bavaria or Alix of Hesse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
That is a wholly reasonable suggestion. Have you any idea on the appropriate wording? Charles 22:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I would wait until the move passes, as seems likely. Wording may occur to me by then. Should Elisabeth of Bavaria be Empress Elisabeth of Austria, under the same reasoning? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It will pass. Added minimal wording. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
In this case, I think the anticipatory modification is fully justified. Charles 17:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The same reasoning would certainly seem to apply to Sisi. john k 22:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And Michael Sanders is insisting that Marie Antoinette of Austria appear in the first line. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a move request on Sisi. Discsuss at Talk:Elisabeth of Bavaria#Requested move. Let's see which way this goes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I honestly hope it goes nowhere. Nowhere near as notable an "exception" as Marie Antoinette. Charles 03:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friedrich Wettin von Sachsen

What would be the best title for this article about a Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights? Most English texts I have found call him "Frederick of Saxony" or "Duke Frederick of Saxony". He was the youngest son of Albert, Duke of Saxony, and never ruled territory; upon entering the military order he would have surrendered his claims. Before being moved to the present title, phrasing not used in English, the article was at Friedrich of Saxony (1473-1510). Olessi 06:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, all of the Wettins are Saxon dukes, so Duke Frederick of Saxony would be fine. It does not imply at all that he was a sovereign. And, of course, that is how he can be found in English texts as you say. Charles 09:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it not the case that non-reigning dukes of Saxony are titled X, Duke in Saxony? † DBD 12:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I have only ever seen the use "Duke in Saxony" (as a secondary "house" title, not a princely territorial one) used after the partitions of the Saxonies into various duchies. As the singular title of "whole" lines, I have only ever seen "of". Charles 13:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I moved the article to Duke Frederick of Saxony as per Charles' suggestion. Olessi 22:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I also created a redirect for Frederick of Saxony (1473-1510); I have no objections to that being the title either. Olessi 00:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philip (II) of France?

Apparently, Philip of France (1116-1131) is better known as Philip (II) of France, or so it would seem from the fact that it's been moved. I suppose this means that all sons of a king of France who died as heir apparent and weren't duke of X or count of Y will be moved. Is this sensible? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Philip wasn't an heir apparent, he was King. At that point in time, the Capetian Kings had their eldest sons crowned King in their lifetime, and the son ruled with his father until one of the two died; at which point, if it was the father who had died, the son would rule on his own. Since Philip was a King and has no better recognised soubriquet (not the case with Henry the Young King, say, who is exactly the same case), but is not included in ordinals (which only include Kings who weren't under the authority of their fathers), this would be the title accepted by monarch rules. Michael Sanders 22:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Off the top of my head there's Hugh "Magnus" f. Robert II. Probably others, but I'm too bloody lazy to check on which sons of kings were consecrated at Reims and predeceased their fathers. If I write Hugues de France (1007-1025), will we one day discover that you've moved it and that France has a hitherto unknown king Hugh II? This is one of those Marie Antoinette bad ideas. It's not as if it could be called Philip, son of Louis the Fat, because that's ambiguous. If the X, Y of Z names had been adopted, you could have had Philip, King of France (son of Louis the Fat) or Philip, King of France (1116-1131), but they haven't been. So you can't. Try as I might, I can't find Philip (II) in print, except when referring to Philip (II) Augustus. Put it back the way it was. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I wrote the Hugh Magnus of France article; and named it as such on the basis that it is more well known and locatable a name than Hugh (II) of France (perfectly in line with monarch naming rules). And there are no others. And he was King of France, which means that he requires a title fitting the monarch conventions (and he would have been called 'Philip, King of France' in his lifetime). So what do you propose naming an article for the second King Philip of France if his ordinals don't allow Philip II of France? Michael Sanders 00:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
What I called it to start with: Philip of France (1116-1131). Well done with the Hugh Magnus article; I have made a few tweaks, most importantly the year of his death (now said to be 1025, presumably the usual when-does-this-source's-year-begin? nonsense). Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Heraldica says he died in 1026. Michael Sanders 01:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
As for Philip, your title doesn't fall in with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Monarchical titles:Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of monarchs, of modern countries in the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" Hugh Magnus, on the other hand, arguably falls under the common name rule (you are welcome to press for Hugh Capet to become Hugh I of France and Hugh Magnus to become Hugh II of France, however, if you consider that insufficient). Michael Sanders 01:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/m/Wikipedia_talk%7ENaming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29_58d7.html"