Talk:Royal and noble ranks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most of the content of this page has been moved (copy-pasted in fact) from Nobility. See Talk:Nobility for discussion prior to the move. --Kpalion 10:20, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've moved Viceroyalty here since it is not a title of nobility. I decided to save it in case anyone wants to move it back.

Viceroy, Vicereine

Viceroi, Vicereine

Vicere', Viregina

Virrey, Virreina

Vizekönig, Vizekönigin

Onderkoning, Onderkoningin

Vizekong, Vizedronning

Vizekung, Vizedrottning

Vizekonge Vizedronning

Vice-rei, Vice-rainha

Contents 1 Zarempire 2 big erasings should be discussed first 3 Freiherr 4 Awkward Table 5 Tsar and Kaiser

[edit] Zarempire

Is Zarempire really a word? It redirects to the article on Empire, and I always understood that Tsarist Russia (and Bulgaria, which I am aware once used the title of Tsar) were simply referred to as Empires. Where did this word come from? Walton monarchist89 10:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] big erasings should be discussed first

There was an edit awaking concern. Let me remind that this article is about noble ranks as well as royal ranks. And rank does not necessitate any "rulership". But anyway, whatever are pretexts, information about noble ranks, so different as such have been, should not erased. Suedois 19:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The blanking was a Wikipedia error that occurs occasionally from the use of Firefox and the Google toolbar. I was aware of the problem, but did not sufficiently check the article to make sure it hadn't been cut off. Sorry for the error. Charles 19:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link regarding it[1]. Charles 19:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The introduction makes it clear that the article will be about European titles, but several non-European titles are thrown in with little sense of purpose or order. Will this article be a comprehensive list of hereditary titles around the world or just European ones?--Countakeshi 11:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freiherr

We are compiling an article about ranks, not necessarily titles, in this very article. Therefore that specific quality should be noted, as it qualifies as a distinct rank. I am not unhappy with it being another "baron" with some explanatory words in the listings of the article, but I am against its total suppression. By the way, the existence of the article Free Lord, which I requested to be merged because it is so short, but has not yet been, is an indication that the said term is used at least in some English contexts. Are they technical contexts? Research contexts? would like to know.. Suedois 18:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Every single item listed is an established English form, except one (Free Lord). They do have some qualities attached, however, the standard English form must be used. In a list of Archdukes, Princes and Counts there is a "Free Lord"... That does not make sense at all. I can count Freiherren amongst people I know and they are never "Free Lord" in English. Always Barons. That is what is established. "Free Lord" may be a part of the history of the title, but it is not its translation. If you are unhappy with there being two Barons listed, then combine them. However, you can't just turn one into Free Lord for the sake of having one of each. Indeed, Free Lord isn't used when taken from Latin to English, although Baron may be derived from liber baro. The English form is Baron and Freiherr comes from the same idea, so it is Baron too. Charles 18:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I would rather keep the two distinct barons. We should explain ranks here, not violently combine them because both may have same translation in English. There are reasons why for axample "Grand Duke" is a long article, explaining several differences between certain varieties of grand dukes. Same with these barons. Suedois 18:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That gets to my point though. They are different but are called the same thing in English. I am comfortable with two Barons being listed with different "definitions", becuase that's the way it is and how it ought to be presented. They can be listed seperately but aexplained fully elsewhere. Charles 18:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awkward Table

There are currently 16 languages and 14 ranks. Shouldn't this table be transposed so that rank goes across the top, and languages go down the side? Would anyone mind if I changed this? Rwflammang 22:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tsar and Kaiser

The listing of Tsar and Kaiser together on the page seems wrong to me. A couple of points:

1. Kaiser is directly equivalent to Emperor, and, in fact, "Emperor" is used in English for most people who bore the German title "Kaiser." Why is "Kaiser" listed separately at all, when numerous completely different titles that are translated as "Emperor" (for instance, the titles of the Chinese and Japanese Emperors, which come from a completely different origin than the western European one), are not mentioned?
2. Tsar in Serbian is considered to be the equivalent of Emperor. Serbian kings in the modern period (which is the only time when you have international recognition of titles being equivalent to one another) bore the title "King" which is something like "Kral" or "Krol" in Serbian, and were not Tsars at all. This was also the title of various medieval Serbian rulers, until 1355 when Stephen Dushan took the title of Tsar (i.e. Emperor). Although he was not widely recognized as an Emperor, it was obvious that this was what he was claiming.
3. We should note that the formal title of Russian rulers after 1721 was Imperator (that is, "Emperor," literally) and not Tsar. Russian Tsars were Emperors, certainly, but the international recognition of them as such was not because of their title of "Tsar," but because they explicitly took the title of "Emperor." After 1721, "Tsar" seems to have been largely considered to be equivalent to "King," although it wasn't really seen as such before 1721 (I would argue that before 1721 the situation was ambiguous, and that the east didn't really have a distinction between King and Emperor, making it difficult to say what exactly "Tsar" meant.). Thus, the title called "King of Poland" in the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna is called "Tsar of Poland" in the Russian Emperors' official titulary; and the Tsar of the Bulgarians is recognized internationally as a King. I think we should clarify this. I should add that we've been arguing back and forth about this at Talk:Tsar, and that User:Imladjov strongly disagrees with me about this.

At any rate, it seems to me that if we mention Kaiser, we should mention other titles that are equivalent to Emperor - notably the Byzantine use of Basileus (a word which is normally equivalent to King), the various East Asian usages, Negus in Ethiopia, and so forth.

It also seems to me that Tsar should be listed on its own. It should be noted that the term has imperial connotations, but that the term was generally interpreted ambiguously, and that the Russian Tsars took the additional title of "Imperator" in 1721 to stake out once and for all their claim to imperial dignity. john k 00:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)