Talk:Constantine II of Greece

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Constantine II of Greece, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
??? This article has not yet been prioritized.

Talk:Constantine II of Greece/archive1

Talk:Constantine II of Greece/archive2 Talk:Constantine II of Greece/archive3

Contents

[edit] Who is naming these articles?

Constantine II "of Greece"? What is that? His son is "Crown Prince"? These are names they call themselves to feel important! The Greek state does not recognise any of it since 1974 and they (supposedly) are Greek citizens! They have another legal name and that's how they should be called.--Avg 17:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No, they should be called by the name by which they are best known, as wikipedia policy dictates. john k 02:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Avg, many Wikipedians, including me, agree with you that it is an insult to the Greek people that the Glucksbergs should still be accorded these comic-opera titles when Greece decided by due democratic process more than 30 years ago to abolish both the monarchy and titles of nobility. However, that is Wikipedia's policy and it is not going to change, so we will just have to live with it. Adam 03:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

So let's say, it's his stage name :-) But even in such cases, the real name is somewhere referred in the article. --Avg 16:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
How can someone have a "real name" which they have never used? john k 01:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The only name he acknowledges having is Constantine, which was what I suggested naming him in this article at one point, but I was over-ruled. "King of the Hellenes" is a title, not a name. This title was awarded to his family in 1864 by one decision of the Greek people, and abolished in 1974 by another decision of the Greek people. It is therefore a title he has no right to use, and certainly not to pass on to his children. He says he has no surname, and I agree he can't be called Constantine Glucksberg, but he belongs to the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksberg, so he should be called Constantine of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. This is not imposing a name on him, it is calling him by the name of his house, a standard naming pattern of European aristocratic families (Hapsburg and Hohenzollern weren't surnames originally either, they were placenames). Adam 04:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Titles can be effectively part of someone's name (c.f. peerage titles, for instance). At any rate, Constantine is indisputably a Prince of Denmark (and is recognized as such by the Danish government), so he could just as well be Prince Constantine of Denmark. But he isn't called that anymore than he is called Constantine Glucksburg or Constantine of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. He is called "King Constantine" or "King Constantine II." And that is how we should call him. Adam, do you object to us doing the same for King Michael? Theoretically, would you have argued in 1930 that the Kaiser's article should be moved to Wilhelm of Hohenzollern? Not only was Constantine the King, he is still generally known by that title, and it follows standard usage to accord deposed monarchs the style they held during their time as king. We don't have Michael Hohenzollern, and we wouldn't have had Peter Karageorgevic or Umberto of Savoy or Alfonso de Borbón, or, God help us, Manuel of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha during those people's lifetimes. When Constantine dies, his son won't get to be Paul II of Greece - it only applies to formerly reigning monarchs, not to later pretenders. You may think that the general tradition of according deposed monarchs their styles for life is offensive, or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that this is how it is done. john k 15:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about the title of the article. I agree that articles about ex-kings should be found at the title they were accorded during their reigns. I am talking about what he is called in the text of the article. It should be noted that although he does call himself "King Constantine", he has no right to do so, because his family's right to that title was a privilege accorded to them by the Greek people, a privilege which has since been withdrawn. Is it your position that no sovereign people has the right to withdraw titles of royalty once they have granted them? That these remain the hereditary possession of those families forever? Adam 17:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, calling him "Constantine" in the text would be fine with me. My position is that former monarchs have the right to the title they once held for the remainder of their life, because this is standard practice. His son and descendants, as I noted before will have no right to be called king. If other former monarchies are any judge, they will continued to be referred to as "Prince of Greece and Denmark," though. What constantly irks me is that there seems to be a strong impulse to treat Greece differently from every other former monarchy in Europe, simply because the Greek royal family is more disliked than other former royal families. john k 04:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

And why should that not be a relevant consideration? The title "King of the Hellenes" was created by the Greek people, and bestowed on George I in 1864. In 1974 the Greek people decided that in the light of the behavior of Constantine II before and after the 1967 coup they would withdraw that title from him and abolish it. I ask again: is this not something the Greek people have a right to do? Adam 05:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

They obviously have the right to remove him as their head of state, and to not refer to him as "King," themselves. They don't have the right to demand that everybody else do the same, because traditionally the title is considered a personal dignity that a person retains even after they stop being a country's head of state. Abdicated monarchs in countries that remain monarchies can be given alternative arrangements, as, e.g. the Netherlandish queens or the Duke of Windsor were. But republics are generally not seen as having the right to take away the personal style of "King" from their former monarchs. Again, the Greek government has every right not to recognize this style, and to call him whatever ridiculous name they want to, and he probably deserves it. But that doesn't change the fact that it's standard practice that, no matter how much a republican government dislikes their former monarch, they don't have the right to disgorge him of the personal style of "King." Does this make sense? I have no particular personal sympathy for Constantine, and I think the Greeks have every reason to dislike the man, but they simply don't have the right to abolish the title of "King" as a personal style. john k 15:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What an outrageous proposition. What you are saying is that if a sovereign state creates a title and bestows it on a person or a family, and then that state decides to withdraw that title, either to bestow it on someone else or to abolish it, that title has somehow become the personal property of that person or family, which the state which orginally bestowed it cannot withdraw from them. This is a thoroughly reactionary, feudal and anti-democratic position. The issue is not whether the Greeks are right or wrong to dislike Constantine, but whether a sovereign democratic state has the right to withdraw or abolish a title which it has previously bestowed. To say that allowing ex-kings to go on being described as kings is "traditional" merely evades the question. Why should this "tradition" be honoured? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Carr (talk • contribs)

Well, the "tradition" should be honoured by wikipedia because our standard procedure is to follow usage, not to dictate it. I would have thought that was our starting point. Standard usage is that former monarchs retain their personal style of "king" after their deposition. Whether one thinks this is a good thing or a bad thing, it is the way things go.

I would add that Constantine's style when king was "HM The King of the Hellenes." He no longer possesses this style, because he is, of course, no longer King of the Hellenes (there is no King of the Hellenes anymore. Similarly, King Otto ceased to be the King of the Hellenes after his deposition.) Constantine is no longer "the King of the Hellenes" but, as someone who used to be a king, he is traditionally entitled to be called "HM King Constantine." He is not the King of anything anymore, but he still retains the personal style of "King," because he (indisputably) used to be the King of a country. This title is not an indication of anything except the fact that he used to be the king. Do you think we should refer to Louis XVI by his supposed surname "Capet" after his deposition, too? As in, "Capet was executed on January 21, 1793 for his crimes against the revolution." Do you really think that's appropriate? One might add that former U.S. presidents are traditionally accorded similar privileges. Bill Clinton is no longer "the President of the United States," but he is "President Clinton." Constantine's situation seems roughly analogous to this - he is no longer the King of the Hellenes, but he is still (traditionally) entitled to be called "King Constantine" because of his former position. john k 05:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, I think that references to Louis XVI after the abolition of the monarchy should not call him "King Louis" or whatever. If Capet was his surname that is what he should be called. If he had no surname he can be called Louis of Bourbon or something (I am not an expert on French titles), or just plain Louis. Once the French people decided to abolish the monarchy he was no longer King Louis XVI and should not be called such.
  • This frequently cited analogy with ex-Presidents is completely spurious. Firstly, Clinton is not formally styled "President Clinton" - he is sometimes (though far from universally) called that as a conventional courtesy, but he is in reality plain Mr Clinton. Secondly, he does not call himself President Clinton - he does not put himself forward as President-in-exile or issue proclamations etc etc as though he were still president. Thirdly, neither Clinton nor the Democratic Party claim that he is still President and that he is entitled to be called President on the basis of that claim. Adam 06:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to add some spice to this nice conversation, why should courtesy titles (as titles of former royalty surely are) be considered part of a person's name and therefore be part of article names of such articles? A courtesy title is thin air, just like calling Jimmy Carter a President, or Joshua A. Norton an Emperor. --Michalis Famelis 08:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute that this article should be called "Constantine II of Greece", because he did once hold that title and that is the way kings are styled. This debate is not about the title of his article. It is partly about what he should be called within the article. Secondarily, it is about the use of fantasy titles by and for his children and grandchildren. These people presumably have surnames, and someone should find out what they are. If they are notable enough to have articles of their own, they should be called by the formula [[Given-name Surname]], and the articles should begin with the formula "Given-name Surname, also known as Prince Given-name of Country, etc etc". Adam 08:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I also don't dispute this very article. Hell, Constantine did hold the title once. My point is towards the children and grandchildren too. --Michalis Famelis 12:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

All of this reminds me of the episode of Friends when Phoebe Buffay decided to call herself Princess Consuela Bananahammock (or something like that). What are you talking about? What is this? The Constantine formerly known as Monarch? The man who would be king? Personally I do not care if the man calls himself Constantine or Constantine Kensington or Constantine Glücksburg, althoug I do not know, whether the citizens of Glücksburg or Kensington for that matter share this opinion. I would mind if he officialy picked a name like Constantine of Greece, which is pretty much what his danish Passport now says, if I got it right in the article. So what happened is that Greece stopped handing out titles to Greek royalty in 1974 and so the Danish passport authorities started to?
The man simply is not Constantine II of Greece as I am not iago4096 I of Greece. Should he keep his title because this country does not exist anymore and the citizens of that country have no right to decide on matters of the former? I strongly disagree. As you see, there isn't even a separate WP-article on the Kingdom of Greece. The two are obviously closely connected to one another.
I am strongly against keeping a direct reference to Greece in the title of the article on this man as well as his descendants.--Iago4096 18:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to your POV but it is of no relevance. Under NPOV Wikipedia follows standard international nomenclature rules. The standard rules on monarchs and ex-monarchs, used worldwide in publications is simple.

  • If some abdicates, they are known as "Ex-King <name>" or "Ex-Queen <name>". After death they are referred to historically by their former title.
  • If some is deposed but does not abdicate, they continue to be known by their former constitutional title as a courtesy title in their lifetime. It does not indicate that they are a reigning monarch. It is merely the form of address used.

Among the many many publications worldwide to follow that rule is TIME magazine, which is hardly part of some Greek/Danish royal plot to boost Constantine.

Wikipedia cannot simply decide to ignore NPOV rules applied worldwide and make its own POV rules. Whether you are "strongly against" it is irrelevant. When you convince biographers, newspapers, broadcasters, historians, political scientists etc worldwide to change the rules everyone follow, then we can change the rules here. As long as they all follow a standard format, then under NPOV rules we have to. Personal whims of individual editors do not and can not override NPOV. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait a moment... We do not refer to Queen Elizabeth II anymore as Queen of Pakistan, right? Neither did we refer to her late mother as the Empress of India lately. These people stopped carrying these titles as the titles stopped to exist. (I decided against using George V and the matter of his identity as King of Ireland after 1927 as an example because I happen to love your country. Bhí mé ag foghlaim beaganín Gaelge in an Ghermáin. - I guess I wrote not one word correctly, but that was long ago.) The fact that both also carried other titles is hardly of importance. The fact, that the other titles were the most commonly used ones might be, though. This brings me to another problem I have. The Greek title in the introduction Κωνσταντίνος Β΄ της Ελλάδας. This is Δημοτική, the modern form of the Greek language which did not receive official status until 1976. The same title in Καθαρεύουσα would be Κωνσταντίνος Β΄ της Ελλάδος, which, incidentally, was King Otto's title. The title all seven following Kings including Constantine II carried was Βασιλεύς των Ελλήνων (i.e. King of the Greeks). The Greek title in the article is one he never carried in a language (language form) which was not officialy in use. It should be changed.--Iago4096 06:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • sigh* You completely misunderstand all the rules on royal titling. Defunct titles are not used when an equivalent level current title exists. As Queen Elizabeth II is still reigning as Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia, etc defunct titles are not used. If she had just one title, and that monarchy had been abolished, and she herself had not abdicated, then she would automatically be referred to by that title. BTW for convenience, Wikipedia uses the standard "of country" title rather than the "of people" form used in "popular monarchies" in the likes of Belgium or formerly in Greece. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 12:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I presume you mean "Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"
  • I ago is correct that the correct Greek formulation, Βασιλεύς των Ελλήνων, should be used in the body of the article. Adam 13:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me go back a bit, to the question of how Constantine's younger children and grandchildren should be called. Adam objects to giving them the "fantasy titles" of Prince/ss of Greece and Denmark. Besides the fact that it is fairly standard practice for members of former royal families that are born after the end of the monarchy to (at least sometimes) use their titles, there arises the basic problem that there's no other good thing to call them. "Theodora Glücksburg" is absurd - she is never called that. And, even if she were to be considered not a Princess of Greece, she is clearly still a Princess of Denmark. But Princess Theodora of Denmark is equally absurd - again, she is never referred to as that. Whether or not she (or her other relations in a similar situation) has the right to call herself a Princess is irrelevant. "Princess Theodora of Greece" (or "Princess Theodora of Greece and Denmark") is the only name she is known by. Looking at google, I got about 300 hits, excluding wikipedia and mirrors, for "Princess Theodora of Greece," most of them referring to Constantine II's daughter. There is one hit, from a message board, for "Theodora Glücksburg," and no hits for "Princess Theodora of Denmark." Obviously, this is a fairly low number of overall, but it seems clear that "Theodora of Greece" is the only name by which she is ever called in English (there are some hits for "Theodora de Grecia" but all are Spanish language). Furthermore, these titles (obviously not recognized by the Greek government) are used and recognized by other European royal families, including the Spanish, British, and Danish ones, as far as I can tell. (That is to say, if a member of the Greek royal family is at a dinner at Windsor Castle, the official announcement refers to them by the title of pretense). In terms of how Constantine should be referred within the article after he stops being king, the obvious thing to call him is "Constantine" or "the former King," or something similar. Wikipedia simply cannot be in the business of giving people names that they never themselves use, and are almost never used for them in the English language. john k 14:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • So who pray is Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon? In fact we make choices about what to call people all the time, some of them quite absurd, others sensible. Wikipedia is becoming immensely influential in the world and if we decide to call a person X rather than Y, that will influence others. We no longer have to follow convention - we are in a position to determine convention, and we should do so on a principled basis.
  • You say: "it is fairly standard practice for members of former royal families that are born after the end of the monarchy to (at least sometimes) use their titles." This gets to the nub of the matter. These titles are not "their" titles. The titles belong to the people of Greece, who created them for reasons of state in the 19th century, then abolished them for reasons of state in the 20th century. They are not the personal property of the Glucksberg famaily. Constantine's children have no more right to call themselves "princess of Greece" than I have to call myself King of England (despite being a descendant of the Edward III). By using these titles, we are making ourselves accomplices in their acts of theft.
  • So what to call them? I would like to know what their legal names are in the country/countries of which they hold citizenship. If they have surnames in those countries, whether Glucksberg or de Grecia or something else, that is what they should be called. If the daughters are married, their husbands will have surnames. If they have no surnames, then they should be called by their given names only, if that is the only name they will admit to having. In the case of Theodora, if she really has no surname, then her article can be titled Theodora (daughter of Constantine of Greece). Adam 01:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Her title is one of the Kingdom of Greece, not of the Greek Republic. Charles 01:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam, stop acting the ass. You are an intelligent guy. You know very well that worldwide, because consorts have no ordinals, when they die, biographers, historians and others use maiden names to refer to consorts, hence Catherine of Aragon, Anne of Cleves, Mary of Modena, Mary of Teck, Isabel of Castille, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons etc. As to the ownership of titles, they never belong to a state. They are awarded by a monarch and are linked to a monarchy. New titles can't be created after a monarchy is abolished but existing titles continue. Hence one gets the Comte de Paris one hundred and thirty six years after the last crowned head in France, Emperor Napoleon III. The German Chancellor has no problem calling the pretender to the German throne a "prince" when they meet. The Vatican calls the last Austrian Crown Prince an "Imperial and Royal Highness". The Russian state calls claimants to the defunct Russian throne by titles. The Portuguese state calls the pretender to their throne by title. The United States called exiled royalty by titles. It really is depressing when an intelligent contributor like you comes up with such lame and childish arguments. If you know anything at all about the topic you know the reality of how these things work. Others are trying to play politics with the issue here. I expected a higher level of academic neutrality and factual knowledge of you. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam, it is not wikipedia's place to decide whether somebody has the "right" to call themselves something. One of the basic principles of wikipedia article naming is to use the most common name. There ought to be a good reason to violate this, and "I don't think this person has the right to call themselves that" simply isn't one of them. The only way we can maintain any pretense of neutrality is by sticking with the commonly used name. Otherwise we are clearly taking sides with the Greek republican government. john k 03:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

As we should. Adam 04:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review WP:NPOV again, Adam. It is totally obviously POV to take the Greek government's side, unequivocally, even if we think they're right. john k 18:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You know very well, Adam, we can't do that under NPOV. We canno take the side of the government, the opposition, republicans, monarchists, left, right, etc. All we can do is reflect the international usage consensus on something. If the consensus internationally was to call Constantine the "Big pink elephant" then we would have to call him that, whether he liked it or not. The Greek Republic doesn't like how the world refers to its exiled royal family. Tough shit. They can decide what to call them in Greece. But Wikipedia is not an agent on anyone. We have to go by world usage, not local usage in one state. But then, you have been around here long enough to know that. Iago clearly hasn't and hasn't a clue about NPOV rules (and doesn't seem to want to learn them). But higher standards are expected from someone with your academic background and Wiki-history. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the more you write, the more you prove my point. Of course German, French, Russian and Portuguese officials may call anyone they like anyway they like, but as Greek officials do not refer to Mr. Kensington as Κωνσταντίνος της Ελλάδος then why should we? Actually I do not get more than nine hits on Google under this name in Greek. I do find some thirty or so for Κωνσταντίνος ντε Γκρέτσια (a Greek mock translitteration of the Spanish name in his Danish passport).

You will find more hits for Constantine of Greece in English than under any other name? Well, of course you will. Ask me how I call him... I don't. If you will find references to him on the internet, they will be by people who support, in one way or another, this deposed monarchy. I really don't want to be nagging, people, but do you realize what we have here? We choose to call him by the name most people addressing him use, and disregard the many people who do have an opinion about this and prefer not to use any name.

So can we at least finally remove the Greek translation of the English title at the top of this article? That form is, as I showed, not in use by anyone and the actual official Greek title he held is mentioned later in the article. I promise not to touch the article until you guys agree with me on this. Please consider that the greek Wikipage on Mr. Kensington follows the naming convention on this page and, thus, makes even less sense.--HRH Iago4096 I of Greece 05:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"Κωνσταντίνος της Ελλάδας" is a completely pythonesque in Greek -- it is not even used by Constantine himself as such! I edited the article to replace it with the Greek version: "Κωνσταντίνος, τέως Βασιλεύς των Ελληνών" (Constantine, former King of the Hellenes) which (albeit FYROM-like) is factually correct and NPOV. Adam charmingly reverted top the contrived "Κωνσταντίνος της Ελλάδας" without talking the time to explain himself. If everyone else agrees, let's revert to it! Rastapopoulos 17:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam's "Κωνσταντίνος της Ελλάδας" seems syntactically wrong in the greek language; it looks like a barbarism. But it is, nevertheless, the accurate translation of Constantine II of Greece. On the other hand,"Κωνσταντίνος, τέως Βασιλεύς των Ελληνών", is inaccurate, because you don't propose an accurate translation but an inaccurate interpretation of the English version.
I saw the articles of other Greek kings and the solution seems clear to me: as it is written in the first paragraph of these articles "George I (Γεώργιος Ι)" or "George II (Γεώργιος ΙI)", it should also be written "Constantine II (Κωνσταντίνος ΙΙ) ... ".
Or we could just avoid any translation, as it happens with Constantine I of Greece. However, if we necessarily need a translation, I prefer an accurate but pythonesque one instead of an inaccurate interpretation. --Yannismarou 18:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what name he's referred to in Greek. We ought to use names that are actually used in Greek - I basically agree with Yannismarou, that "Κωνσταντίνος ΙΙ" makes the most sense - his title needn't be translated into Greek. I don't understand Iago's point about usage. Sure, most people who talk about Constantine are royalists, but that doesn't matter. He should be referred to by the title most people refer to him as, period. And, even so, it's not true that only monarchists call him "Constantine II". A lexis-nexis search reveals such notable friends of monarchy as The Guardian referring to him by that name, and The Independent calling him "King Constantine II." Whatever the Greek media calls him is utterly irrelevant, because the Greek media writes in Greek, and this is the English wikipedia. The English language media, including leftist rags, calls him Constantine II. john k 18:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that this is en.wikipedia has nothing to do with discrediting media published in other languages. Would you discard as irrelevant a publication of say Le Monde because it is published in French? English is a universal language and en.wikipedia is likewise a universal encyclopedia, one of its stated purposed being fighting systemic bias. And after all, the Greek media are relevant in an article about the former king of Greece. --Michalis Famelis 18:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a lame argument. Should our coverage of Bush be on the basis of what the US media say, our coverage of Saddam before the war based on Iraqi media, our coverage of the Pope based on what Catholic publications say, our coverage of the West bank and Gaza based on Palestinian papers? Of course not. So why in the hell should we base coverage of a Greek topic on Greek newspapers? If the world says one thing and the local media says something else, then under NPOV local usage is not the determining factor, however much Greek republicans might wish otherwise. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand what I wrote. I never wrote that the article should be solely based on what the Greek media publishes. What I wrote, I wrote in reaction to john k's abject and total dismissal of the local press. And of course the coverage of Bush should take into account the US media, and if I'm not mistaken the wp article on W does exaclty that. There is one end (john k's end) that says "the local media is irrelevant". There's the other end (what you thought I meant) that goes "the local media is the only one that matters". And there's the NPOV way (which I tried to express) that reads "an article should take into account the local media". Is that any clear? --Michalis Famelis 21:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Clearer, but still wrong. Encyclopaedias never base their judgment calls on information on the media. The media is at best a minor consideration. They rely on academic publications, publishing house rules, worldwide usage, international conventions (both formal and informal), primary documentation, etc. On the issue here, the local media usage is quite frankly irrelevant. It is standard practice worldwide in academic sources, in conventions and in primary documentation to refer to non-abdicated exiled monarchs by title, never ever ever by surname, even if they have one. It is also standard in all cases to regard titles as hereditary. When a monarchy is abolished, new titles cannot be created, but no-one regards existing ones as lapsing at the moment a monarchy is abolished. France tried that in the 1880s following the collapse of the last attempt to restore the monarchy (excluding Dwight D. Eisenhower's efforts to bring back the French monarchy in the 1940s) and was ignored by many French citizens (even republicans, who continued to talk of the "Comte de Paris", not "Monsieur Bourbon", or Monsieur le comte de Paris as the law claimed) and by everyone else worldwide. Even the French republic now accepts titles from the period of the kingdom and the empire. Ditto in Germany, in France, in Russia. The United States in its documents on the exiled Greek Royal Family (and they remain legally the exiled Royal Family, not the ex-Royal Family, until the exiled King abdicates, in which case, as with ex-French Royal Family, the ex-Austrian Imperial Family and the ex-Germany Imperial Family, they become internationally defined as ex. The Greek Royal Family remain that in the absence of an abdication, just as the Italian Royal Family does. Non-abdicated royals are often called titular royalty.) calls them by title.
When in the late 1980s the ex-empress Zita of Austria-Hungary died (and she was "ex" because her husband had abdicated his Austrian throne, whatever about his Hungarian, Bohemian and other thrones, in 1918) the President of the United States sent a message of condolence to her son as "Your Imperial and Royal Highness", Otto, even though, as a politician, he used a personal name normally. Pope John Paul II said the same. So did the President of Ireland, the President of Portugal, the President of Zimbabwe, the President of the Soviet Union, etc. And if Constantine predeceases his wife, they will all send their condolences to "Your Majesty" and call her "Queen Anne Marie". And they will, as is standard in diplomatic routine, also send their condolences to "His Royal Highness, Prince Pavlos". All his siblings will be called "Royal Highness" and referred to by title. Some years ago, when as is commonplace a newspaper article in Ireland referred to "King Constantine II of Greece" a delegation of Greeks insisted on meeting the editor to demand an apology. He told them "Did Constantine abdicate?" "No, but . . . " "Then he will continue to be called by his title as is standard. Now get out of my office." (A friend of mine witnessed it.) The rules are quite simple: monarchs inherit a throne and a title. The throne may be abolished by a state. A title, cannot be. It can only be freely given up (abdicated) by a monarch. If they do that, the lose it and may be referred to as "ex-king . . .". If they don't the title goes from being a constitutional office to an honorific used by them, and entitled to be used by them, until death. However as the title was only inherited by virtue of inheriting a throne, it cannot be inherited separately. So unless you have a throne, you don't become a monarch. The title dies with the last holder. So there will be no more kings of Italy after Umberto II, hence his son is known as Prince of Venice, no more emperors of Austria after Karl I, no more kings of Portugal after Manuel II. However the President of Portugal, the Prime Minister of Portugal and others still call the pretender to the throne a "Royal Highness", still call him the Duke of Braganza, and curiously, all attended his wedding, a rather unusual honour for a claimant to a defunct throne. BTW President Yeltsin also called the claimant to the Russian Imperial throne an "Imperial Highness" when they met, while Chancellor Helmut Kohl was referred to by the Federal Republic as meeting "Prince Louis Ferdinand", the then pretender to the German and Prussian thrones, rather than "Mr Louis Ferdinand Hohenzollern". The federal president referred to the prince as an "Imperial and Royal Highness".
Greece, almost uniquely, has made an issue of its exiled king's title, partly because of the bad blood between Constantine and Papandeou. Every state in Europe at some state was complained to about the use of the title, and every single state sent the exact same message back to Papandreou: "stop acting the idiot. We are doing what is standard. Take your personal vendettas elsewhere." Indeed Papandreou and some Greek republicans achieved what in theory should have been impossible. They created a degree of sympathy for Constantine, a complete buffoon of a man who deserved the sack in the first place. Wikipedia is simply the latest in a long line of publications and entities worldwide to have been besieged by a small minority of Greek republicans making an issue of a non-issue: the normal way of referring to exiled royalty. Maybe it is about time Wikipedia did as did other encyclopaedias, publications, publishing houses, politicians and governments, and told them quite bluntly: "We are simply following the rules. Take your personal vendettas elsewhere." FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the Greek media was brought to this conversation regarding the greek language translation of the guy's name in the first line of the article. You needn't have written an essay on it! --Michalis Famelis 00:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't think "Constantine of Greece" needs to be translated into Greek at all. It is not and never has been his formal title, it is just a name of convenience that is used because we have no better name for him. His former, formal, royal title is correctly translated in the body of the article. Adam 00:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the actual problem Greece has with Constantine's title (and I have with this article's title) is that it refers directly to Greece (the country I happen to live in), which is no longer a monarchy. This is not unusual as the title was awarded to the family by The Kingdom of Greece. So what if we changed the article's title (staying in Wikipedia's common form of Name Number of Country) to Constantine II of the Kingdom of Greece. Come on, would this not make everybody happy? --HRH King Iago4096 I of Greece and Northrhine Westphalia 05:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That is your problem with the title. Almost all of the rest of the world has no issue with it. Charles 16:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, sintrofe, I don't think we are going to win this one. Adam 06:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that the title is the problem. It seems to me from previous discussions that this matter is resolved. The whole discussion had to do with Adam's translation of "Constantine of Greece". If we think (as I do) that "Κωνσταντίνος της Ελλάδος" is a bad translation, let's delete it, let "Constantine of Greece" without translation and let's get over with it. And I donot think there's any reason to reopen the discussion about Constantine's titles. I donot believe there's anyone really caring in Greece any more! --Yannismarou 10:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I second that. --Michalis Famelis 10:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I third that Rastapopoulos 11:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It was not my translation, thankyou very much. Adam 10:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Two points about unresolved issues vetted on this page: First, a title can become in essence a part of a person's name (a "byname", as the Encyclopedia Britannica quaintly puts it). In some cases, it can replace, or all but replace, the person's actual name in common usage. Have you never noticed how often politicians refer to the US President, or to the British monarch, as "the President" or "The Queen" (cf. "Our Savior" or "the Lord") even when they call lower-ranking people by their actual names? And when was the last time you heard the Dalai Lama called anything but "the Dalai Lama", or referred to your parents by their actual names?

Secondly, the common practice with former US presidents is to keep calling them "President So-and-so" out of courtesy, and they're always addressed as "Mr. President" except by people who are deliberately disrespecting them. The only exceptions are John Quincy Adams who was elected to Congress after his term as president, and William Howard Taft who later became a Supreme Court judge. Of course, a similar custom prevails for abdicated and deposed monarchs unless they've been granted another title or attained one (e.g., former Edward VII of the United Kingdom and former King Simeon II of Bulgaria).

So for heaven's sake let this twirp continue to call himself King Constantine if he wants to. If he had any sense he'd call himself Constantine P. Glucksburg, being that his full baptismal name is Constantine Paul (Konstantinos Paulos in Greek), just as the former king of Bulgaria calls himself Simeon Sakskoburgotsky--never mind that it wasn't originally a surname, it's the logical thing for him to use as one. But sense is exactly what he hasn't got; if he had, he wouldn't have interfered in government in the first place by firing a popular prime minister, leading to a military coup and his own deposition. The man is quite obviously unfit to exericse any position of responsibility, king of Greece included, but he can call himself whatever he wants. Indeed, I myself can change my name to King Constantine if I wish. Tom129.93.65.31 05:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1973 or 1974

Interesting point, when does he loose the title 'His Majesty Constantine II, King of the Hellenes'?. The military regime abolished the monarchy in 1973. But it was an internationally recognised government because King Constantine II, as head of state, had 'signed it in', in 1967. Therefor, one might assume that it was in their right to abolish the monarchy and their decision had to be recognised - it was not challenged internationally, Greek embassies accepted the new status quo and they retained their ambassadorial rights. The decision was also not challenged by, the by then, former King Constantine. Politis 13:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it has been generally agreed in retrospect not to recognise the actions of the military regime in abolishing the monarchy or their plebiscite. The definitive abolition of the monarchy arises from the democratic decision of the Greek people in 1974. Since that time he has had no title under Greek law. In Greece he is plain Mr Glucksberg, or Mr de Grecia if he prefers. He can call himself anything he likes, and fantasy monarchists can give him whatever titles they like. But as a matter of law he has no title. Adam 15:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised someone like you knows so little about international diplomacy, Adam. He is as entitled to be called King Constantine II of Greece as former US Presidents are to be called President, former senators Senator, etc. It would help this page if you took the political agenda hat off and dealt with objective facts. Does he have a courtesy title? Yes. Is it used? Yes, worldwide, in republics and monarchies alike. Is that normal for a deposed monarch? Yes. Does it indicate a claim to be the reigning monarch? No. It is simply, as the name says, a courtesy title used by a former holder of a constitutional office. Calling him "King Constantine II of Greece" no more implies that he is a reigning monarch of Greece than calling Jimmy Carter "President Carter" implies that he is US president, or calling George Mitchell "Senator Mitchell" implies that he is still a senator. It is a standard format used worldwide. Get over it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a random point: The Greek Monarchy was originally thought to be from god. If this is the case (regardless of whether or not our current higher thought tells us otherwise), it truly was never bestowed by the Greek people and therefore can never be removed from the Royal Family.


[edit] Exile

I am not sure we can refer to him as still in exile. As far as I understand, since 2003 he and his family have been free to come and go as they please to Greece and (I think) have bought a house there. Politis 12:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It is probably true to say that he is now no longer technically in exile, since under the Schengen Treaty the Greek government could not stop him returning to Greece to live if he chose to. However he still does live outside Greece. Adam 13:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he lives in London. However, the quality of exile implies that one cannot return to one's land of birth. He can and, I think, he can buy property, invest, etx. He certainly has an office in Athens. This, to my judgment, has lifted 'exilehood' from his shoulders. Hence, I suggest that we also lift it from the text, or, at least qualify it: in exile 1967-c.2003 Politis 13:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he is an ex-exile. Adam 14:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stoopid effing Greek politicians

Sorry about this dear friends, I find the concept of monarchy to be corrupt. BUT!! It is part of a country's history and cannot be erased. Oh really? The 'stoopid' effing Greek politicians have decided in Athens to change the names of two old, central streets in Athens from 'Vassilis Sofias' (queen Sofia) and 'Vassilis Amalias' (queen Amalia), to 'Andreas Papandreou' and 'Costas Caramanlis'. Vassilis Sofias is a huge artery and now it will have the name of a corrupt sob. Politis 15:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Brace yourselves: Konstantinos Mitsotakis Avenue is next, bwahahaha! Rastapopoulos 06:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

He may or may not have been a corrupt s.o.b., but he was elected Prime Minister several times by the Greek people, and so was Karamanlis, who was also President. Who elected Sofia and Amalia Glucksberg? No-one. They were foreign spouses of foreign Kings imposed on Greece by the Powers to prevent Greece becoming a democratic republic. Away with their street names, I say. Adam 08:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

> "They were foreign spouses of foreign Kings" Hmm... your comment smacks of racism and xenophobia! A. Papandreou was half "foreign" (Polish from his mother's side) and had a "foreign spouse" (Margaret). So? Should it be held against him? Rastapopoulos 20:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Queen Amalia was not a Glucksbourg but an Oldenburg and an Adelheid of Anhalt-Bernburg-Schaumburg-Hoym, on her mother's side. History is history and those ladies did no harm to anyone. Besides, Athenians have lived with those names for over a century. There is already a huge coastal avenue towards Piraeus that was recently built and it is called... Andreas Papandreou. At least they could have replaced ladies with ladies, like Bouboulina or Aspasia (Pericle's wife) or Marietta (a popular lady of the night who offered relief to half the Greek army and most of the US airbase). Soon we will have Papoutsis and then Koufodinas Avenue... :( Politis 14:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

They were Glucksbergs by marriage. I would certainly favour a Bouboulina Street if there isn't one already. Adam 22:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather off-topic and certainly a late remark but in case you are slightly interested, there are quite a few streets named after her all over Greece and Cyprus (added in the Laskarina Bouboulina's article.) Regards 195.93.21.1 10:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Check your facts, Adam. Amalia of Oldenburg was married to King Otto who had a completely different lineage than Constantine's ancestors. I am also glad you approve of Laskarina Bouboulina even though she was also of "foreign" Arvanite descent :P Rastapopoulos 07:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Foreign? If the arms and legs are foreign to the body they are attached to, then the Arvanites who fought as Greeks for the liberation of Greece are foreign to the Greek nation. Her heart and soul (hmm-tralala-didaaa) was more Greek than that of George Papandreou Politis 12:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so Amalia was a Wittelsbach by marriage, not a Glucksberg. Mea culpa. Adam 07:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Back to the original point, changing the name of a street to honour contemporaries does not erase history, it only consigns it to the past where it belongs. Sure, the choice of streets to commemorate modern PMs (and President) was not arbitrary, just like their original choice to commemorate royalties was not. But don't let me spoil the fun of comparing the Greekishness of Arvanites to that of the Danes. 87.127.166.138 (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1973 or 1974

1973 or 1974--We are in the midst a nascent reversion war on the date of the end of the reign of King Constantine II. I would like for us to discuss this and try to come to a consensus. I have expressed a view that the plebescite in 1974 was the legal end of the reign, but there are others whose view is that June 1, 1973 is the proper date. Another possible date is July 24, 1974 (the return of Karamanlis to Greece) and another is December 13, 1974 (the date of the second plebescite). I ask that we discuss this and try to come to a consensus. Please vote for one of the following: Option 1--June 1, 1973; Option 2--July 24, 1974; Option 3--December 13, 1974 and explain your reasoning. PLease feel free to change your vote if you find another argument more compelling.Argos'Dad 20:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

De facto his reign ended when he left the country in 1967. De jure it ended in 1974. A case could be made for either date, but not for 1973. "De jure" means according to law, and my understanding is that current Greek law holds the 1973 plebiscite to be invalid, and his reign therefore to have continued until 1974. Adam 01:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If Adam were correct, i.e. if we accept that Constantine remained the legitimate state sovereign past 1973, it would follow that the temporary adoption of the pre-Junta constitution without the fundamental articles relating to the nature of the polity, and the 1974 plebiscite by the metapolitefsi government, were quite unconstitutional. On the other hand, how could anyone accept that the Junta had the legitimacy to abolish the polity in 1973? A bit of a Catch-22 situation! Rastapopoulos 09:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

2003? 1074? den katalaveno. Adam 10:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, corrected ridiculous typo :)Rastapopoulos 14:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Simple enough. The June 1, 1973 reflects an actual change in Greek constitunional law and the Kingdom of Greece simply no longer exists. There is another head of state and no provision for any member of the former Royal Family still holding status in it. We also have the short-lived Greek Constitution of 1973. July 24, 1974 makes little difference. Karamanlis takes his oath of office in the presence of President of Greece Phaedon Gizikis and Constantine II is not restored to his throne. December 13, 1974 only gives Greek citizens a chance to restore the Monarchy which they do not. Constantine II is not restored to the throne and then allows his subjects to decide for their opinions in restoration. He is an exile with little to no official standing.

The Parliamentary decision in 1975 to call all legal decisions by the Junta governments into question reflects in legal theory alone and does not retroactively restore a deposed King to an empty throne. Also negates the effects of the Greek Constitution of 1968 and Greek Constitution of 1973 but the Greek Constitution of 1952 is only partly restored until a new Constitution can be formed by the Parliament. The Kingdom of Greece is never restored.

And the Junta naturaly had the legitimacy to abolish the polity in 1973. For it was in unquestionable power with no rival Greek authority operating at the time. Unlike the periods or rival Greek governments in 1916-1917, 1941-1944 and 1947-1950 where we also have various legal documents published by one and not recognized by the other/s.

By the way said Parliament was only elected in the Greek legislative election, 1974 (November 17, 1974) and I don't see how the decisions could be held to retroactively effect historic events which had already come to pass. We should aim to depict actual history and not the way things "should" happen. User:Dimadick

I'd go for the Referendum of 1974/Constitution of 1975 dates. Here is my reasoning:
The political situation from 1973 up until the Nov1974 elections and the rubsequent Dec1974 referendum was a mess. Think of it: a risky/unstable "liberization", a bloodily repressed students' rebellion, then martial law and a coup, and another coup, an invasion of a "brother state" and the fear of total war with Turkey (to quote the Metapolitefsi article: the Greek public [...] raided supermarkets fearing an all out war with Turkey). This whole thing I think marks a situation where everything is fluid and in the air. Every outcome seems possible and nothing is settled, polity included. So, IMHO, the abolishment of Monarchy on behalf of the junta is practically irrelevant as things changed daily. So I'd argue that although indeed the first de jure act of abolishment of the Monarchy is indeed in Jun1973, nothing was certain and nothing was settled until the Dec1974 refenderum. I'm not saying this in the legal sense, but in the political sense, which I believe is more close to the truth. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Come to think of it, much of what I wrote could qualify as "creative deduction". So maybe the question should be: "What is the scholarly recognized and most commonly used date?". I don't quite know the answer to the "scholarly" part, but here in Greece it is commonplace to refer to the 1974 refenderum as the time when monarchy was abolished. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes sense to me. This also highlights a problem with very short summaries of complex situations: The single date can never properly capture the situation. Something like "de facto abolished 1967; abolished by military junta 1973 (validity questioned); abolished by plebiscite 1974" is more like it, but that's alot of text to put in a succession box. --Delirium 08:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph says 1964-74, yet the Infobox & Succession box says 1964-73. Not to reopen the discussion, but this doesn't look good. GoodDay 18:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the Infobox to read 6 March, 1964 to 13 December, 1974. GoodDay 19:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is innacurate. Again, Constantine was never restored to his throne since 1 June 1973.

As long as the opening paragraph matches the Infobox, June 1973 is fine by me. You're right, the 1974 plebesite was held to decide: Should monarchy be restored or not (monarchy was abolished in June 1, 1973). GoodDay 22:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we please end this dispute over the length of Constantine II's reign? I'm getting a sense of pro-monarchy vs anti-monarchy PoV's in this dispute. When did Greece ceased to be a Kingdom? which ever date that is, is the day Constantine's reign ended. GoodDay 18:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing Constantine (former King) with Constantine Karamanlis (former Prime Minister) and Constantine Kollias (Royal Aide/Politician)

In the section "As King 1964-67", there are references to both the former King Constantine and the former Prime Minister Constantine Karamanlis. The article then goes on to mention "Constantine" without any further clarification.

This is massively confusing, as the reader cannot determine whether "Constantine" in this context means the former King or the former Prime Minister. Andrew Oakley 15:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

ARRRGHH!!! Further sections on this article make a reference to Constantine Kollias, and then go on to just say Constantine again. Is there a forename shortage in Greece or what? FFS. This article is unreadable. PLEASE can someone clarify exactly which Constantine is being talked about in each and every instance. Andrew Oakley 16:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

When you see "Constantine" alone it should mean the former king. If Kollias or Karamanlis are referred to by their first name it would be unencyclopedic (much like calling GW Bush, "George" in the respective article). And yes, Constantine is a very common name in Greece. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Michalis for the clarification. I have added a "readability" note at the top of the article to assist others. Andrew Oakley 16:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Since royalty (like the religious in some cases) aren't known by surnames, and are treated as having no surnames even when they do have 'em, the name "Constantine" by itself means the King. But just to make things clearer, the article ought to say "the King" or "King Constantine" at that point. Tom129.93.65.31 04:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Married his cousin

In the article it says that he married his cousin, Anne-Marie of Denmark. Who were their common grand parent(s)? Or does it refer to some remote (second or third or something) cousin? I tried to figure out their common ancestery, but got confused quickly. But if they're not first cousins I think just writing "cousin" is inaccurate at best, or confusing at worst. Thanks! Shanes 12:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

They are third cousins, with both having Christian IX of Denmark as a common great-great-grandparent. They also both have Victoria of the United Kingdom as a great-great-grandparent. So while "cousin" is technically appropriate, I will edit it to read more correctly. Prsgoddess187 13:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I've added "third" to the Anne-Marie of Denmark article as well. Yeah, I guess just cousins is technically ok, but it confused me (mostly because in my language, Norwegian, these things have completely different names), and it doesn't hurt to be specific about this in the article. Shanes 14:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (not) allowed to campaign

When reading this article, I noted a contradiction. In the introduction, it is stated that Constantine was allowed to campaign for the plebiscite, but in the main text it is stated that he was NOT allowed to enter Greece at that time. What is the correct statement? Timothy Backs 21:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Both are correct. He was allowed to address the nation on television, but did not go to Greece to campaign in person. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I note, however, that the introduction says he was allowed to enter Greece, which does indeed contradict the later text. There are claims from both monarchists and republicans regarding the circumstances in which the referendum was held. It could just be that he was strongly advised by Karamanlis not to return to Greece to avoid inflaming tensions, rather than a formal ban per se. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this contradiction too! I wish somebody who knows the situation would straighten this one out. Tom129.93.65.31 04:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is very POV and anti-former King Constantine. It needs some sort of neutral balance. Finneganw 03:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:News glykxboorg.jpg

Image:News glykxboorg.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review needed of very POV article

Given that the article is about a living person, the current article is very POV and would appear to be in clear contravention of wikipedia guidelines. It is currently a very one-sided article and needs urgent attention. Finneganw 03:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to some such instances? Thanks! 87.127.166.138 (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Junta.jpg

Image:Junta.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

Formerly reigning or not, the introduction should not be pared down to the minimal to serve the POV of any user as that gives undue weight to one side. Formerly monarchs are still entitled to and referred to by their former reigning titles by courtesy. This has been evident for decades, it not centuries. He is still the second Constantine and still "of Greece" and it shows by the earlier move of the page (see the history) what is trying to be achieved: a POV. Please stop this and leave the article as it is. This is simply how it is. That one doesn't think Constantine should be king does not matter, it is his courtesy title and we don't minimize that. Charles 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You should probably consider not reverting other people independent changes to achieve your point. Could you perhaps just edit the part of the article that you actually disagree with and leave the other changes intact? --Law Lord (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I will tend to that but perhaps you should address the matter at hand and in a civil manner at that. Charles 21:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I see your nasty edit summary and remind you again to remain civil if you want your points and arguments to be taken seriously. Charles 21:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Law Lord is continually reverting the intro without providing an explanation as asked, and I would argue as required, on this talk page. When an offer to explain changes is extended I suggest you take it. So far you are wholly in the wrong when you disrupt Wikipedia to push a POV. Charles 19:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prince of Denmark

I have added some short info on his title Prince of Denmark in the top of the article since this is his only remaining valid royal style, to my knowledge. --Law Lord (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: I can obviously accept this phrasing: "As a male-line descendant of Christian IX of Denmark he retains the title Prince of Denmark which is his only undisputed title." This is exactly what I meant. --Law Lord (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portrait

The portrait at the beginning of this article is a cropped form of a picture that has been deleted from commons for copyvio. It should be removed, right? Iago4096 11:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)