Talk:Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. DrKiernan 16:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm requesting a move due to the title being inaccurate, and POV, this person was never de facto ruler of Croatia, besides, the country he allegedly ruled was a fascist puppet state so this claim has no legitimacy at all. Also, he never even accepted the crown so I think the case is pretty clear here. And on top of it all the title as it is now is highly insulting since it insinuates this Italian sockpuppet had anything in common with Croatian kings of old, like Tomislav. --Dr.Gonzo 18:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest a move to Tomislav II of Croatia, because this is probably what he is most known as, even if the title wasn't really legitimate and he never took on the crown. -Ulla 21:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. He is FAR better known as Aimone, Duke of Aosta, with the whole "Tomislav II" thing just a footnote in his biography. I think his reaction to it says it all, he thought it was a practical joke, see the article. --Dr.Gonzo 22:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I wouldn't really know. Do Italian dukes really have numbers like British dukes, or would not Aimone, Duke of Aosta be a better title? -Ulla 22:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't say, but I'm not trying to change that convention here, just the name of this article. It seems that many other Italian dukes also have numbers in their titles, so unless someone wants to argue against it I think we should leave it as is. --Dr.Gonzo 23:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I oppose this move. According to this & this, Tomislav II of Croatia pulls up over 230,000 hits, versus 2,500 for Aimone, Duke of Aosta. Remember this guy was a king so we should follow the typical naming conventions for Kings. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That's just it, he wasn't a king, he never accepted the crown, he never even set foot in Croatia. After Italy lost in WW2 he officially abdicated and neither he nor his offspring ever made any claims to the crown, probably because they knew the whole thing was a sham from the start, it was like Hitler giving the crown of France to his cousin just because he occupied it by force. You get my point. Of course, the article should mention his connection with the name, but to name the article "Tomislav II, king of Croatia" is insulting not only to Croatians today, but to the memory of the original bearer of the name - Tomislav, the first king of Croatia, who is to this day an important national icon and a source of great pride among Croatian people. Also, I object to your Google search methods since "Tomislav II" gives only 513 results [1]. "Aimone" +"Duke of Aosta" gives 1640 [2]. Btw, I'm simply proposing moving this article to Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta, and we can keep a redirect at "Tomislav II of Croatia". --Dr.Gonzo 23:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

First, Tomislav from House of Trpimirović, was known in Croatian historiography (as well as in former Yugoslav schoolbooks) as "kralj Tomislav", "king Tomislav". No "Tomislav I". So, we should move that article to Tomislav.
Second, regarding that Italian duke, we should move to Aimone, Duke of Aosta. That's his proper name. The name "Tomislav II" doesn't work. Think better. It's an invalid contract. The "crown" was given to him by a person that wasn't legally elected. Second, Aimone never accepted the crown. Ulla, RAndom Editor, how do you imagine things? E.g. person A steals the car of person B, and wants to give it to person C, but person C refuses to take it. And you want to call the car of person B, person C's car, although that car was stolen (illegal possession) and target giftaccepter didn't want to take it? No legal ownership, no transfer of ownership happened at all. Kubura 08:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not made any other consideration than to try to imagine what he is most known as, regardless of legitimacy or other claims. There are many state leaders who have come to power in dubious ways, so wether he was a legitimate king or not should not be an issue, I think, and neither should the assumption that this name and title might be insulting to some, because there are lots of that in the history of the world too and the 1940s Kingdom of Croatia as created by the Italians is still a historical fact (I hope I am not insulting anyone by stating this...). – So, if we should name the article according to his original Italian name and title rather than his given Croatian name and title, it is because he never accepted the new name and crown himself and thus never acctually wore them. That's fine by me. A redirect from "Tomislav II of Croatia" should be in place anyway. -Ulla 13:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: I believe he is most well known for being the King of Croatia. Mindaugas II of Lithuania is similar situation to this one I personally think the title should just be at Tomislav II of Croatia so as to follow naming conventions. - dwc lr 22:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any similarity with Mindaugas II of Lithuania. Mindaugas was elected by representatives of Lithuanian government, Aimone wasn't. The most that can be said about him is that for a very short time he was "appointed" a king of a state that was independent in name only, he accepted reluctantly, never set foot in it, and, as soon as the conditions were right (fall of fascism in Italy) he renounced the throne he never truly accepted in the first place. --Dr.Gonzo 01:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The important thing is that he was the king of croatia for two years and I believe that he is most notable for being so as opposed to being Duke of Aosta.-dwc lr 12:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what people are trying to say is that he wasn't even a pretender - a pretender claims a throne or office of a ruler, but in this case the said throne or office *did not exist*. The said throne wasn't really even abolished (as is the case with modern-day pretenders), it was practically non-existant since 1102. Yes, that's right, almost nine centuries. For all practical intents and purposes, this person's claim to be a king is completely devoid of reason; and the Croatian people find it insulting. So why perpetuate it in the article title? --Joy [shallot] 16:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I know he wasn't a pretender, he was actually the king of croatia from 18 May 1941 until he abdicated on 31 July 1943 and believe he is most well known for being so and I think that the article title should reflect that. - dwc lr 16:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, you don't seem to be listening. The claim that he was a "king" is not supported by any actual evidence. There were proclamations and abdications, sure, but no actual kingdom. If you get your cousin to proclaim you the king of Babylon, is the rest of the world supposed to reference you as such? --Joy [shallot] 20:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

He was proclaimed king by his cousin who had been asked by the Ante Pavelić to name a member of the Italian Royal Family. He may have reluctantly accepted the crown but he accepted it none the less so that makes him a king. The kingdom was the Independent State of Croatia. Are you saying that he was never king of Croatia? - dwc lr 22:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! Anyway, I guess I'm not going to convince you that this is a perversion, so I'll stop here. Someone can fight the windmills. --Joy [shallot] 23:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per Rule #7 of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Monarchical titles. Royal titles don't have to be "democratically" conferred to be acknowledged in history: a number of sons of Holy Roman Emperors were made German Kings, and the newborn son of Emperor Napoleon I was declared King of Rome despite the fact that the people of those territories did not confer, may not have accepted, and were not ruled by the titleholders. Indeed, the 19th century kings of Holland, Westphalia, and Naples were all Napoleonic puppets whose realms were brief and establshed entirely by the sword, yet history acknowledges their long-gone titles. Wiki exists to record history -- not re-write it. If the kingship of Croatia was not only nominal, but ignored by Croatians then and resented by them now, the article should say so -- to the extent reliable sources can be cited. Nor did the King of Italy need the legal permission of a junior prince of his dynasty to confer a new title upon him. If the above-cited Naming Convention needs changing, such changes are discussed and voted upon on its talk page. Also, many of the Google hits cited for "Aimone Duke of Aosta" refer to his grandson, who has been much in the news lately because he is considered a new, rival contender for the Italian throne by monarchists. Lethiere 02:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm quoting rule #6 from the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Monarchical titles. "Do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender, i.e., someone who has not reigned." This person obviously hasn't reigned, so the rules are clear. --Dr.Gonzo 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta → Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta — Its like Dr.Gonzo says, the man never really ruled the Independent State of Croatia due to his misgivings with the Ustaše leadership (per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Monarchical titles). He was also never crowned and he thought the title itself was a joke. Finally, even if we choose to ignore the above, the NDH never really de jure existed, and one can hardly be a monarch of a non-existent state. —--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Strong support. As per reasons stated above. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose until evidence on what the subject is actually called is presented. We are not in the business of deciding whether the NDH was a legal state or not; especially since this would involve which Government was the legal government of Yugoslavia in 1943. If Churchill didn't care, neither should we. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • We're not, of course, that's a play on words. The argument is that the Duke never de facto the country, making him a pretender. There isn't a single event throughout the two years of his supposed reign, that would suggest he ruled Croatia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support because the current title is a hideous pastiche; Italian Wikipedia lists him only under his ducal title; its article says he objected to the appointment; at Independent State of Croatia it's noted that he declined to visit or actively reign pending ratification by the Croatian parliament -- which never came; and that Joachim I of Naples is a re-direct to Joachim Murat, the name by which that "king" is best known to history. FactStraight (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Murat is much better known for his long career before his inglorious, but internationally recognized, reign at Naples, and we should call him Joachim Murat. But it's a matter of balance: we use Charles XIV John of Sweden, not Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte. Is this princeling known for anything else than his nominal reign? (As for fixing the pastiche, I agree; but I should like some evidence of what to fix it to.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support, the legitimate monarch until the legal dissolution of the 1st Yugoslavia in November 1945 being Peter II of Yugoslavia. Unless you want to declare all of the exiled governments and monarchies littering the restaurants of London during the war as illegitimate. As an incidental point, the Wiki article (nothing close to an RS, I know) on the Independent State of Croatia says he declared he would enter Croatia only after the departure of German and Italian troops. Ho ho ho. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Dr.Gonzo (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose even the Croatian wikipedia list under Tomislav II and there is plenty of evidence that he received the Crown of Zvonimir. The colaborationist govt. of ISC had issued a Law decree on the Crown of king Zvonimir where is listed that rights came with the crown. As did with the crown of St. Stephen of Hungary. -- Imbris (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Lets be clear on this fact: the "crown of Zvonimir" of WW2 is a peace of metal made by the Ustaše to give some legitimacy to their puppet-government, not an actual heirloom of Croatian kings. The real Crown of Zvonimir is lost in history and had little or no resemblance to the fabricated version. It has nothing to do with the Holy Crown of Hungary, which is a real royal heirloom
  • Furthermore, there is no dispute as to whether the Duke was invited to be the Croatian King, but the fact remains that he never ruled the country, which makes him an Axis pretender. There cannot be two kings of Croatia, one must be a pretender. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Per other support reasons. Charles 01:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I will write reasons on talk page. --Rjecina (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose he was offered and accepted the throne took a regnal name when his son was born he given as one of his names Zvonimir he granted noble titles and then he abdicated in 1943. This suggests he was a reigning monarch and his highest title is his Croatian one. Personally I think the article should be at just Tomislav II of Croatia. - dwc lr (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • His son could have been named "Weeny, 76th King of the Ayleids" it makes no difference. The argument is that the man did not de facto rule Croatia, which makes him a pretender. This is supported by Wiki policy, what evidence can you show that the man actually ruled. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Otto von Habsburg is a pretender I think people are getting confused over Tomislav II because he wasn't an absolute monarch a dictator. Naming conventions support using the monarchical title. Most monarchies are constitutional monarchies he was the head of state a figurehead while the country is run by politicians. His cousin Victor Emmanuel III didn't exactly rule Italy while Mussolini was around. Queen Elizabeth II has governor generals who represent her in the countries she is head of state of she is still the monarch though. - dwc lr (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Aimone has never accepted the title (when and where he accepted the title, references please???), and, on the other hand, the crown was offered to him by a person (Pavelić) that had no such rights (who was he to give/offer him that title?). It'd be the same if, e.g., Milan Martić had offered the crown of Croatia to Radovan Karadžić. So, Aimone's just a duke. Kubura (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • He accepted the title and took a regnal name Tomislav II he could of refused. The crown Montenegro was offered to two royals both of whom refused. - dwc lr (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not know why you are in coherence with this RfD (Kubura) because that RfD has been started with a premise that Petar II is a legal king and Petar II has not been confirmed (constitution in the Kingodom of Yug was a shame, manipulated with electoral laws and produced a kingdom without the support of majority of peoples he "ruled". -- Imbris (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • So Peter was illegitimate while Tomislav was legitimate?? Is that the meaning of this post Imbris?? My friend, you'll not find many people who share your POV, I'm afraid. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid you won't find a single source supporting the illegitimacy of Peter II, no matter the injustices of his family's rule. You'd also do well to remember the Banovina Hrvatska. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. There's no royal legacy in Croatia for centuries, also this title was never officialized. Maybe it was offered to a guy, maybe he accepted it, but it was never officialized. Actually this "title" was just a part of a big game of the imperialistic forces concerning potential new European order, during WWII. BTW NDH was anti-royal political unit. This case is like unexisting marriage: X and Y were affianced, but X and Y were not married. You don't become a king just because somebody ask you: will you? and you say: I will. Official proclamation of a king never happened and NDH was not a Kingdom! Zenanarh (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment He was best known in history for that title and as I have pointed out not all kings have to crowned nor for the matter of fact have a crown. The title of the article is important for finding it and for the proper description of what is the content of the article. The article is clearly not about his ducal title but instead of well sourced facts that he once hold the title. -- Imbris (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Even if he is more known as the "King of Croatia", a claim I'd like to see sources for, it does not matter in accordance with Wiki policy (see WP:NCNT). You appear not to have read my full description of the move argument. I have clearly pointed out on several occasions that notoriety is second to the rules on monarchical names ("...use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem"), and rule six states: "Do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender,..." i.e., someone who has not ruled. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Tomislav II was king of Croatia what would he (or any monarch) have to do to rule in your opinion. The NDH was a kingdom he was it's King (head of state) the country was governed by Ante Pavelić as Prime Minister (or what ever his title was) this is how most monarchies are run. I think a lot of people have a medieval view of kings. - dwc lr (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
        • LOL, LOL and LOL! NDH was a kingdom? Please show me one single source that NDH was a kingdom or monarchy! Where? When? How? Also we need some relevant proof that a guy was officially proclaimed a king of that "monarchy"! This discussion becomes totally unserious. It reminds me of one another "King": Elvis Presley. Since he was a "King" we should conclude that USA is monarchy or kingdom. Zenanarh (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What was the NDH a republic then?

• Axis Forces in Yugoslavia, 1941-45 by Nigel Thomas p 12 "Croatia technically a kingdom under the absentee King Tomislav II"
• "Ante Pavelić who led a delegation of Croats asked King Victor Emmanuel III to name a member of the House of Savoy, King of Croatia. Aimone was then officially named King by his cousin Victor Emmanuel III" this is sourced from the article.

What was he exactly, was he a "pretender" as some people keep saying, what utter garbage that is. What do you think he did, just one day decide to declare himself the King of Croatia. NDH was created he was appointed king by the head of the government he abdicated. A man who was king of Croatia for two years a de facto country reminds you of Elvis Pressely now your just being silly. - dwc lr (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Rjecina. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Support, looking through the whole page again, I've decided to change my opinion. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Why what's changed your mind. - dwc lr (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose It is not for us to judge the nature of his rule. The fact is he was King, constitutionally. As such the article ought to be entitled as it is presently. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support IMHO, he was never King of Croatia, as Croatia was still a part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yugoslavia did not exist de facto. As Counter-revolutionary says its not our job judge the nature of his rule de facto he was king with some international recognition. You cannot possibly deny that. - dwc lr (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions the proposed title is not supported by the conventions and is an incorrect form. see the second point Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other royals . - dwc lr (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Howabout, Tomislav, 4th Duke of Aosta. Or is that original research. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that would work as he is only known as Tomislav in relation to his kingship of Croatia. Naming conventions saying former kings should be listed under their regnal titles. 4th should not be used. It's too late to change now we will have to see if it gets moved to an incorrect title per Naming conventions. - dwc lr (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The 'Kingdom of Croatia 1941-43' wasn't recognized by the internationl community. Therefore (IMHO), he wasn't a King. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Axis powers recognised it. I thought you considered him a puppet king do you accept he was a de facto a king. - dwc lr (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Having read the article Kingdom of Yugoslavia; there was never offically a Kingdom of Croatia during 1941-43. The Duke of Aosta, didn't have a kingdom to be King of. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Officially in the eyes of the Allies no. - dwc lr (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It was recognized by but a minor part of the world, like today Palestine, Kosovo, Western Sahara, North Cyprus or Taiwan. Next to that, under previously established international norms, aggression and destruction of a country like that (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) is against the Hague Convention of 1907, therefore we cannot consider any of those entities like that. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hague Conventions were aplicable to the states parties of those Conventions. You haven't cited the precise text and we shouldn't trust simply your memory. Also those conventions stipulate only humanitarian law (also concerning the acts of war) but these conventions do not state anything about fixed borders. Yugoslavia was not a party of the League of Nations (1941-44) and it is dubious whether Yugoslavia were party of these Conventions since "leaving" the international association (League of Nations). -- Imbris (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry dwc, but I'm sticking to supporting a 'page move'. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ican't believe I forgot that, of course, that's why such states are considered non-existant in the first place! --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

• We are not qualified to determine de jure sovereignity; whose law applies? is an essentially POV question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course we're not, but official history does obviously not consider the NDH to have legally been in existence. The Yugoslav state, though changed dramatically by the war, is not considered to have dissolved. The legal title of the monarch of Croatia would be in the hands of Peter II of Yugoslavia in London, "Tomislav"/Aimone is an Axis pretender. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Legality has nothing to do with it. It is a largely meaningless question to begin with; and we specifically choose not to use legality as the test for our article names. That's one of the reasons for WP:COMMONNAME in the first place: so we don't have to decide whether Romulus Augustulus or Henry Puyi were legal Emperors, merely what English does in fact call them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ask (and preferably answer) the question that is central to our naming conventions, and I may well support; there is no particular reason to promote the claims of Axis puppet states, and it may well be more common and clearer to call him Aimone, Duke of Aosta. But this proposal is not what we care about. We don't do legality. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't want anyone to consider the (non-existent) legality of the NDH, the real point here is that he was a mere Axis pretender, not a "true" monarch of Croatia. There is nothing in the man's history of involvement with the NDH that suggests he was a Croatian monarch. De jure, he is not the King of Croatia (Peter II is), de facto, he never actually ruled the country. In short I can't see how he's not a pretender.

"6. Do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender," --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter II is King of Croatia. This gets us into deeper waters than DIREKTOR may recognize.

• Was he ever King of Croatia? His father and grandfather had been Kings of the Croats.
• Was he still King of the Croats in 1943? Was Charles II King of England in 1649, or is that a legal fiction? In order to argue he was, you must take a strong Legitimist position, which no subsequent Government in Zagreb has ever recognized.
• But the Legitimist claimant should be Otto, jure sanguinis King of Hungary and Croatia.

Aimone/Tomislav was de facto king in Croatia itself.

This is why we go by what other anglophones call him. Evidence, please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• First; he was not de facto king of Croatia, he never set foot in it, never actually performed functions of state, was never crowned, and was never ratified by the Sabor of the Independent State of Croatia. How can he be a de facto ruler? (the references are in the article)
• Second; yes, Peter II was the de facto ruler in the state for a short period before the German invasion, the title "King of Yugoslavia" is the same as "King of Serbs Croats and Slovenes". A change in name is not a change in substance, this is the one and the same title.
• Third; the title "King of Croatia" (and Slavonia) was merged (after the abdication of King Charles I) with the Kingdom of Serbia to create the title "King of Serbs Croats and Slovenes", later renamed to "King of Yugoslavia". However, regardless of whether we accept Peter II was the King, the other alternative is not Aimone, but Otto von Habsburg. I can't see how this makes him less of a pretender.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Yes, Peter was de facto King in Croatia in the spring of 1941, before he was driven out by conquest. This is why I have consistently discussed 1943.
  • the title "King of Croatia" (and Slavonia) was merged (after the abdication of King Charles I) with the Kingdom of Serbia I thought we should come to this. This is why we don't argue legitimacy; the question of whether that merger was legitimate is not neutrally answerable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Septentrionalis. Peter II ran (flew) away from Yugoslavia in spring of 1941. He had a choice, he could have stayed. Hitler's intervention was against Simović's coup d'etat government, not against King Peter II Karađorđević - his regularly chosen government (of Milan Stojadinović) signed joining of K. of YU to Axis. So, untill 1943, Peter II was internationally recognized ruler. Afterwards, you cannot treat Karađorđević as King, because Allies 've recognized Tito's government and AVNOJ (that functioned as parliament) as true representatives. Otherwise, it might seem that you recognize decisions of an imposed puppet-dictator (Pavelić) (offering of Croatian crown), and on the other hand, it might seem that you don't recognize democratical decisions of AVNOJ from 1943 (deposing of Peter II). Kubura (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You discuss 1943? I misunderstood because you mentioned that Alexander and Peter I were kings of Croatia, but Peter II wasn't. I merely pointed out that all three were at one point de facto kings of the Croats. Peter II was not the de facto ruler of Croatia in 1943, yes, but neither was Aimone.
If we consider, for the sake of argument, that the "merger" of the titles was illegitimate, then Otto von Habsburg is the legitimate ruler, either way its not Aimone so we don't really have to answer. Frankly I don't see where you're going with this, I have more claim to the Croatian throne then Aimone ;). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Where am I going with this? I am merely showing you the maze in which you are wandering; my comments on Peter said three separate things, which I can rephrase if necessary. The thread of Ariadne is: what do English sources actually call Aimone? Please look it up; I have other interests than the conflicts of the Western Balkans in 1943. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• And you doubtless have more rational claim to the throne of Albania than William of Wied; but we list him under William of Albania nonetheless. The proverb is Let him be king who has the power; let him keep who can. and the Great Powers have given many irrelevant younger sons kingdoms to which they have no connexion whatsoever. So here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of the history of my own country, and I would not say it presents a "maze". The difference between William of Albania and Aimone is that he actually ruled. Aimone did not.
Here's my point: the guy didn't actually rule (or get crowned, or perform functions of state, or set foot in his "kingdom", or get recognized by the parliament, or the UN, or anybody), so he's a pretender. And Wiki policy states: Do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender.
Furthermore, he is more commonly known by his title as Duke of Aosta (and Spoleto) than as the 2 year "King" of a non-existent Nazi puppet state. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• he is more commonly known by his title as Duke of Aosta (and Spoleto) than as the 2 year "King" of a non-existent Nazi puppet state. This is the only claim that matters. Provide evidence for it, and I will support the move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So the fact that he was a pretender is irrelevant? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• The "fact" that he was a pretender is a quintessential POV question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am still unable to grasp what logical POV supports his "kingship" here. There isn't even an excuse to call him a "real" king. In any conceivable sense of the word, the man didn't rule Croatia. There is ample evidence in the article and elsewhere that the "King" had virtually nothing to do with Croatia, and he has no legitimate claim to the throne. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• All of this belongs, with sources, in the article. None of it changes our policy, to call him what he is usually called; whatever that may be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCNT says "use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." They do: in relation to pretenders' articles rule number 6 (that I've quoted rather frequently) is the main reason I've proposed this move. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• But to apply that you must provide evidence that it is consenus that he is a pretender; this is intended for cases, like Bonnie Prince Charlie and Henry V of France, where there is consensus that there was a Government in being which excluded the pretender, because, for them, name and numeral are minority usage. In 1943, most of Croatia was under Italian occupation, and Aimone was invited by the defacto Croatian government. Enough; WP:NCNT was never intended for the purpose to which you are putting it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Friends, if I may, recent edits fall down because they are discussing the content of the article ("All of this belongs, with sources, in the article"). The discussion you are having is about the content of the article, where it should remain focussed on its title. By all means the article content can mention and indeed discuss at length the title and legitimacy or otherwise, but the thorny topic in hand is only the title of this page. A point well concluded in this edit [3]. Next point, there's been lots of erroneous talk about 1943. The guy "abdicated" his "throne" in 1943. Get a grip people. We need to be discussing 1941 and whether those that offered him a throne had a throne to offer.

And while I'm on, I'll point out that I'm a republican who believes that all monarchs should be sent to the salt mines. Thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion 2

Here's the reason for the move, fully explained:

• According to WP:NCNT we must "...use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem".
• There is a rule listed in WP:NCNT that concerns this matter: "6. Do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender,..."
• Aimone, the Duke of Aosta, is a pretender to the Croatian throne supported by the Axis. He never actually ruled. These are the well known facts that illustrate this:
  • The King of Croatia during the 1941-1943 period is Peter II of Yugoslavia (or Otto von Habsburg, if we do not consider Charles I to have abdicated), certainly not Aimone. The Yugoslav state is not considered by historians to have dissolved during WW2. If we consider the situation on the ground, then the Yugoslav Partisans actually control most of the Nazi-puppet Independent State of Croatia (his supposed "kingdom").[4]
  • Aimone never set foot in the Independent State of Croatia (and actually thought the whole matter was a joke).^[1]
  • Aimone was never crowned.
  • Aimone never performed any functions of state.
  • Aimone's rule was never ratified by the Parliament of Croatia (the Sabor).

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that Aimone was invited by the "de facto" Croatian government (though that may be disputed due to the situation in the guerrilla war), that does not amount to regal rule. Despite his invitation, he did not actually rule, any more than Peter II during his 1941-1943 exile in London, while the latter at least has legitimacy and international recognition. What evidence do you, Septentrionalis, have to show that he did rule (i.e., that he was not a pretender) despite these arguments? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Kings of Serbia after 1882 were not crowned. Peter II of Yugoslavia took only an owth of aleigance. Crowning was not an issue in some cases where tradition has not established crowning procedures.
• Many kings and emperors did not preform and duties, Pu Ji is an example, but he is nevertheless historical tzar
• The Law decree on the Crown of king Zvonimir did not stipulate any crowning or for the matter of fact no ratification. The ISC was a corporate state whose legal system correspond with Franco Spain and Portugal (during some years). This was a completely different legal system - different to any existing or previously existing legal system.

Imbris (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What's your point, noone is denying he was invited?
I ask again: what arguments would you provide to show this guy actually RULED the country? It is illogical to ask for someone to prove a negative (i.e. the non-existence of his rule). You're actually the one that has to show that he did de-facto rule that Nazi puppet state.
P.S., your analogy with Puyi is completely wrong, he most certainly was the last emperor of China (1908-1924) and was not a "Tsar" at all. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is just a rename case, we have to prove to an admin what should be better _title_wise_ and not argue about such minute details. Aimone ruled de jure and de facto promoted some nobles into the peerage of Croatia, this has been documented in the literature listed in the article. And your disregard to the facts, like that Law decree and the legal system of that colaborating state is a clear proof that you want to push your POV in the en.wiki when the hr.wiki states Tomislav II. Tzar/Emperor - one the same Tzar is more slavic. -- Imbris (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and the way to prove that "Tomislav II" is better is to show that he was not a pretender. This is, of course, impossible as the man had almost nothing to do with the country. It looks to me that your active WP:CANVASSING is more endemic of POV-pushing, but lets keep this civil, no "accusations".

• De jure, the ruler of Croatia is Peter II, not Aimone. Perhaps you have trouble accepting this?
• De facto, he never set foot in Croatia, was never crowned, was never ratified by the Sabor, was given a fabricated peace of metal, and the only thing he ever did that had anything to do with the puppet state is giving a person peerage? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not true. We have nowdays Kosovo, we have had Taiwan. ISC was a state nevertheless of influences from Third Reich and Kingdom of Italy. Council of Europe condemned practices of state-genocide in communist states (and you would say that those communist states - did not exist).

Yugoslavia did not exist (de facto). Yugoslavia signed that Pact and left the League of Nations (latter rejoined under discutable circumstances).

Peter II was not the ruler of Croatia, not since he fled Yugoslavia and took the gold. Not after he trusted the colaborationist Chetnicks. His state simply ceased to exist. Peters ancestors have never been approved by the Croatian Parliament, the Constitution was a shame because of Election law

His authority does not come from steping onto the Croatian soil. He received the Crown, the Law decree stipulated what comes with the crown (and this is it). The Law decree has not provided for any ratification, ratification was not a part of the receiving the crown. The metal and the design of the crown play no part.

Also you should be more detached when speaking about this and try not to be biased towards every detail (every bit) of the history of ISC. I do not support any historical revisionism and what you are doing is just that. You are not a judge and a jury. Aimone was a king, however the governmental aparatus was criminal and corrupt.

Imbris (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

omg. I think you just made it clear why you oppose this. Please, I do not intend to patronize you in any way, but:
1) Yugoslavia is not considered to have dissolved by (non-Axis) historians. The country way occupied, yes, but not destroyed; there is a difference, you see. Any state creations by the Nazis during WW2 (including Mengjiang, the ISC, and the General Government), did not de jure exist in accordance with international law. Yugoslavia was occupied by the Axis, as far as the international community is concerned, the Nazi's could have made 263 various states and named them "The United States of Strawberry Yogurt" 1 through 263 :)
2) The government that has legitimacy is the Yugoslav government in London, which later merged with the AVNOJ (the Tito-Šubašić agreement). The Yugoslav membership in the Tripartite pact was clearly rendered void when it was attacked by its "allies", as you call them. You may totally ignore the NDH in any legal considerations, whatsoever. I am sure you are not doing this intentionally, but you appear to be trying to legitimize a Nazi puppet state.
3) The only acceptable argument towards "Tomislav II" is the claim that he de facto ruled the ISC. This is contrary to many arguments brought up during the discussion, do you have proof of his de facto reign in the ISC?

Please stop accusing me of various mental defficiencies in this matter, that is not the way towards proper discussion. I can assure you that I have no personal agenda or POV here, and that I know a great deal about the period we're talking about (if I do say so myself). Your canvassing and "calls for help" are hardly "NPOV" behaviour.
--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You have not refered to my comments at all, instead you tryed to interpret international law of that time. Everyone knows that international law of that time was virtually non-existent. There was humanitarian law in its beginings but not an international law comparable with what we have today. It was easy for states to just leave the League of Nations (like Kingdom of Yugoslavia) and continue what ever agression you wanted. So stop this constant badgering with unsourced statements. We need paragraphs, citations, treaties.

Your constant claims of some historians who will do anything to prolong the existance of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (in history - not in this time and age) to at least 31.1.1946. is an ill concieved attempt which will fail. Stop stating such dubious qualifications like non-Axis historians.

Clearly void - this doesn't mean anything.

This is a serious allegation no matter it was said in gloves. I am just stating facts. If Rjecina agrees and I know his expertise in the topic I agree that Tomislav II of the Independent State of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta is a good title.

Stop this puppet state as this was proof for your claims. Yes it was a colaborationist state with a marionet government and a criminal regime in charge but not a puppet-state. We must bear in mind that states are not created nor destroyed as somebody said. I interpret this statement like this. Nations have states so calling something a puppet state is being biased towards the people. But I am not offended if somebody insists of being rude and not-objective towards the WWII. There should pass more time to people get objective.

Your hearding of the flock of deletionists is also not a good way - because you haven't called the other involved parties to the discussion. It seems to me that you wanted this to go quiet.

Imbris (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is fast degrading into a meaningless squabble, you appear to be emotionally involved here. I did not "try to interpret international law of that time", I interpreted international law of the present. We live in the year 2008, and I assure you that the General Governement, Mengjiang, and the ISC did not de jure exist in accordance with international law. Furthermore, there is no legality whatsoever in Aimone's ascension to the throne. He was installed by a "government" whose existence and legality is not recognized by any state or country on this planet.
My evil plan will succeed, bwaahahahahahaaaa! as Peter II was the de jure King of Yugoslavia until he was deposed via referendum, in accordance with the Tito-Šubašić agreement and the merged AVNOJ/Skupština assembly. Yugoslavia as a state, kingdom or not, did not dissolve during WW2.
Yes, I only invited one person to the discussion before you started canvassing, and when you were finished, someone had to (neutrally) invite the remainder of the involved persons. "Funny" how you left out all those that voted otherwise than you'd want them.

In order to bring down tensions and normalize the discussion, let me make my personal opinion of the period clear: I do not support the Serb hegemonism of the Yugoslav kingdom in any way, I do not support the unitarianism of the Yugoslav throne, and I have no illusions about the conditions of that period. However, as a Croat, I believe that calling Aimone a "King of Croatia" is not only incorrect both de jure and de facto, but is also an insult to the memory of the real Croatian Kings, as well as to the very people of Croatia, whose national legacy is in danger of being tainted by an altogether cheap fascist attempt at legitimizing their failing rule.
--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally, I hope we can end this bickering and return to argumentative discussion. You went to a lot of trouble writing essays here, but you did not bring forth any argument or source that shows the Duke de facto ruled Croatia (de jure we have Peter II).
mind, --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am deeply sadened that you think of my contributions as meaningless. They are not what you like to claim it. Your recalling the International law shows that you are not a historian - and not objective. We cannot judge the past by the standards of the present. We can stress out the oppinion of the present but what happened in the past cannot change that. Your campaign to vote with emotion is what is meaningless and blocks this discussion into a hault. Emotions is stating that Croatian kings would be smirged by the very mentioning of the Tomislav II is false and your illusions that Petar II was legitimate is null and void according to the Historical foundations in the Constitution of Croatia. Petar II was illegitimate ruler whose constitution was passed without the will of the people. The majority of the people wanted a republic in those days but electoral fraud which led to underrepresentation of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia and Vojvodina lead to forming of a illegitimate kingdom. This is known to every primary 8-grader in Croatia. -- Imbris (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The majority of the people in Croatia wanted a republic. I am sorry, but there is no source that will say Peter II was an illegitimate ruler. Again, I do not support that state, nor do I think it was good for the people, I am just being objective. Furthermore, for all its failings, I certainly do consider the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to have been a far better country than the NDH. I'm sure we'll both agree on that point. ffs, the Serbs at least did not slaughter us en masse keep us in concentration camps, we have to give them that.

I did not asses your contributions as "meaningless", do not play with words, what I said was that you did not refute the main argument for the move: that the man did not rule.

Look, lets 'get to work here. The argument for the move is still unrefuted.

De jure, Peter II is the monarch. His country was terrible, the rise to power of his father murky, their rule corrupt and hegemonistic and dictatorial, but he was a legal monarch.

De facto, the Duke of Aosta did not rule the country due top his personal disagreements with various involved states and powers. Wether he wanted to is not relevant, the fact remains he was never ratified by the Sabor or assumed his position and rank in Zagreb.

Everything you wrote, far from "meaningless", is known and accepted, but does not refute these arguments. Do you have new evidence or sources that can counter the fact that he did not rule that puppet state?

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes he is illegitimate because the Constitution of the land was illegitimate but this has no role to play because he was silently accepted. He was deposed in every historical regions other than Serbia (in WWII). You have not named any source or fact to support that Peter II is de jure (he is the uzurpator of the throne of the state that during 1941-43 has not been part of the League of Nations. On the other hand every opposer to this move has named usefull evidence that you deliberately ommit discussing about.

De facto Peter II ruled only few days of 1941, illegitimatelly considered of age for ascending on the throne but not crowned because not any Yugoslavian king was crowned. They just received the rights of having the crown (which, and for this I am not so sure, were kept in the National Museum at the time). In any case first crowning of a Serbian king occured 1904-09-09, but as I recall after that crowning there were not crowned since. I do not recall and this can be found out easily that the pretender on the throne of Yugoslavia never granted noble titles (this was the practice of Serbian kings, princes from the time of vozd Karadjordje.

De jure Peter II ruled only over Serbia (Kosovo parts of Metohija and Macedonia included).

De facto - Aimone received the crown under the auspices of the Law decree. He granted noble titles.

De jure - There exist records from the Croatian State Parliament of that time so it should be easy to locate whether the Parliament discussed the Accords of Rome, The Parliament had no authority to make laws so it did not have the authority to ratify that agreement (under the law system of that time).

Imbris (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, I don't know HOW to explain this to you: Peter II is a legitimate ruler of all of Yugoslavia, saying otherwise is simply untrue. I suggest we leave it at that. You appear not to know much about the period. If I may suggest that you ignore the elementary school lessons in Croatia, they are quite biased and generally of poor quality.

De jure, despite our mutual dislike of the fact, Peter II is the monarch. The Duke's granting of one or two noble titles is in itself completely meaningless if he did not rule, i.e. if he was a pretender.

De facto, Aimone refused to take up office until he was ratified by the Sabor, which never happened. He refused to rule the country due to the unresolved Dalmatian question (see text). (The "crown of Zvonimir" is a meaningless peace of metal forged by the Ustaše fascists.)

I ask you again, what evidence can you bring that he de facto ruled the country? His legal (de jure) standing is clear, he is a pretender to a title held by Peter II.

There is no need to discuss the "legality" of his position, it is widely affirmed that Peter II is the legitimate King, not the Italian. Again: please concentrate on the de facto rule that you say he exercised. This is the only point of interest. While at that, please keep in mind that titles he may or may not have granted are meaningless unless he de facto ruled. I can't understand why you refuse to even consider you may be wrong here...? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion 3

Is this matter concluded? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No. And I will invite Rjecina to this discussion. -- Imbris (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I'm looking forward to his opinion on the matter. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina as a historian has definatelly right oppinion and I think that his position will be that the current title (headline) is most correct and NPOV. -- Imbris (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's leave that to Rjecina, shall we? I know the man and do not need your personal description of his opinion. I'm sure he knows I'm not moving this page because of some "POV pushing". I also do not like the implication that I'm "anti-Croatian". (You appear to know nothing about my previous edits.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is historical and legal question.

If we want to write NPOV truth then in my thinking we need to move this article on position Tomislav II of Independent State of Croatia because this has been state right name.

Few days ago in article Independent State of Croatia I have writen all my knowledge about this king [5] . Who knows this information will maybe help somebody to make decision ?

Facts which are not under question: Ante Pavelić has signed Rome agreements in which Duke of Aosta has become Croatian king. Croatian parliament (Sabor) has confirmed this agreement in 1942 (I am not 100 % sure). Ante Pavelić has been prime minister during Tomislav II reign. He has become head of state only after end of monarchy (It is writen in article Independent State of Croatia )

Only question is if he has been de jure or de facto and de jure king. If he has been only de jure we need to move article to name/title Duke of Aosta but if he has de facto ruled then ..

Legal question is if his meetings with Ante Pavelić, change in Ante Pavelić state position after end of "monarchy", creation of many duke and barons is enough to use like evidence that he has been king ?

Many (in Croatia) question his wish to rule, but answer has become clear in 1943 when he has given to first born son name Zvonimir.

Maybe I am mistaking but final reason for my vote has been personal thinking. In Croatia right wing supporters are speaking how Ustaše has not been so bad and they hate Tomislav II. I am socialist and I am against Ustaše. For me Tomislav II is example how right wing politicians will sell everything and everybody in name of National interest. I am saying this because like 90 % of Croatian population I am not neutral in this question .--Rjecina (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, we are not disputing that the guy was invited to be the "king" of that occupational tool. However, according to international law, the de jure King of Croatia is Peter II, while de facto Aimone did not reign in the country. Wether or not Aimone wanted to be a King is not the question. The arguments for the move have been brought forth with these facts in mind. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter II was the illegitimate prince regent of Yugoslavia, he was never King of Yugoslavia. He was no king of Croatia because the title was not granted to him. He only could have succeded the throne of Serbia and considered to be a pretender to the throne of Yugoslavia. Tomislav II was a king, the most of Wikipedias in the world acknowledge that fact and if as you say non-existent kingdom never was then there never was the ISC or what you are saying? When Zapolja was king, Ferdinand was also a king. -- Imbris (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC

Seriously man, you don't know a lot about WW2. Read the sources in the article entitled KING PETER II OF YUGOSLAVIA if you do not believe me. "Prince Regent"? I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense. He was a LEGAL KING. Its like no matter anyone says or does, you'll keep repeating that the world is flat... "Tomislav II" is in dispute, Peter II is NOT. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is Legal king is a POV issue as has been pointed out there were two sides you know. - dwc lr (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I have been saying it is ease to solve this problem. Article can be moved to Tomislav II of Independent State of Croatia. We all agree that he has been king of Independent State of Croatia !--Rjecina (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I must still disagree with that rename, even though it would be faaar more acceptable. The fact remains that he did not rule. (Also, the title would be incorrect, as "King of Croatia" was his supposed "title"; but this is acceptable as far as I'm concerned.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Monarchs are not required to rule; if they were, we would not have an article on Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

oh please, the man is the King of Sweden ffs. The analogy is completely wrong for obvious reasons. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It has everything do to with this issue. And your obvious reasons are not coherent enought to state them. -- Imbris (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Imbris, you are totaly biased and would say anything not to get this move done. Carl Gustaf is the legal King of Sweden, he does indeed rule that country as a constitutional monarch. If you are implying that the monarchs of constitutional monarchies do not actually rule their countries than we have traversed beyond rational discussion. That would mean, for example, that Queen Elizabeth II does not rule the Commonwealth, which is absurd. Obvious enough for you? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

She does not rule the Commonwealth; she reigns over it. Her powers are extremely limited (and she is bound by convention not to use them); Carl Gustav does not have even such powers as Elizabeth does. I regret that this discussion has descended to the assertion of patent unfact - or conceivably to utter ignorance of English history and the English language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I thank you, Pmanderson, for your wonderful insight on my linguistic capabilities. Let us hope your regrets of the discussion's "descent" shall not descend it further. As for your analogy, I can only say that comparing Queen Elizabeth II and/or Carl XVI Gustaf with Aimone in both legality and de facto status is utterly absurd. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell me then, which is it?

• You do not understand the English distinction between rule and reign.
• You knowingly place Elizabeth (and Carl Gustav) on the wrong side of that line.
• You do not know any better.
• A fourth possibility; but what is it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You're question is offensive in itself, I refuse to answer. You tread on the very border of a personal attack. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Your phrasing answers for you. Please consider making arguments on Wikipedias in whose languages you are fluent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I lack eloquence to engage in this discussion, but it would appear that intelligence is needed more urgently on the other side. Tell me, are you trying to provoke me, or are you simply unable to converse in an unoffensive manner? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't need eloquence. What you need is data, which show what English usage is; not what you think it ought to be. That would still convince me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There, there Director, calm down, you offend people more harshlly and with such language. You are not a Saint to run to the admins as if they were your mummy. -- Imbris (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

LoL, let's please stop with this nonsense, I assure you Imbris I'm not upset. My mommy will make sure you don't go around campaigning on Wikipedia. The most amusing thing in your post is that you accuse me of insulting people, and then proceed to insult me yourself. What's the matter with you, anyway? What's with all this childish nonsense, would it be inappropriate if I asked you how old you are?

Pmanderson, you're running in circles: we have already established that the English usage is irrelevant here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We have? Where? and Who's this "we" who have established our naming conventions are irrelevant? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. again: "...use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem". They do. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

1. They don't. I wrote part of WP;NCNT; it is not intended to act in this way.
2. WP:NCNT only modifies our general principle where it says it does.
3. We consists of Direk and tor. I thought so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not intended to act in this way? Then what way is it intended to act?! In plain text we have:

• "...use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem".
• "6. Do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender,..." which is to say, someone who has not ruled.

Now the logic I, and several other editors, have decided to follow is this: If he did not rule, then he is a pretender. If he is a pretender, then we should not "apply an ordinal in the article name".
I guess what I want you to know is how, pray tell, can directly contradicting Wiki policy be in accordance with that same policy? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What sources say he is a pretender or it just the conclusion you have come to because he wasn't an Absolute monarch? - dwc lr (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A pretender is someone who has not ruled. Read the above discussion and you'll find arguments aplenty to that effect. Instead of asking us to prove a negative, what sources say that he did rule Croatia (not that he was invited by the Ustaše, we all know that)? Remember we are talking about someone who refused to assume the position due to serious disagreements with both Rome and Zagreb, who did not get ratified by the Sabor, and did not even set foot in the country. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Bhutanese king just gave up his power, the Nepalese king tried to rule and is about to lose his throne. Croatia was ruled by his prime minister not all kings are absolute monarchs. You are abusing the pretender policy that is to prevent Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou being at Louis XX of France, Leka, Crown Prince of Albania being at Leka I of Albania take your pick (Pretender). That applies to someone who has never even remotely been a monarch of a country. Tomislav II was clearly a monarch NDH de facto existed presumably de jure in the eyes of the Axis. All former or deposed monarchs should revert to their previous monarchical title upon death. The naming conventions are clear and the proposed title is not even supported by the NC anyway. NC Other royals:

• 2. If a prince(ss) holds a substantive title that is not princely (a peerage, for instance), use "Prince(ss) {first name}, {title}". Examples: Prince Andrew, Duke of York and Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex. Numerals are not used. Example: Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, not "Prince Richard, 2nd Duke of Gloucester". - dwc lr (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If we follow Wiki policy, then a man that did not rule should not be named by the title he did not hold. In Aimone's case specificly, he neither ruled nor reigned. All the people you listed have had a stronger position on their respective thrones than the Duke. I am aware of all the examples you have brought forth, but still I cannot think of a supposed "monarch" that was less of a monarch than Aimone. Objectively speaking, he really had little or nothing to do with that "country". I hope this is agreed upon by everyone. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've said a dozen he was not an Absolute monarch. Yes your right he did not rule the country his Prime Minster, Ante Pavelić ruled the country. Pmanderson has tried to explain the difference to you between reigning and ruling not all monarchs do both he was a king in the twentieth century not the tenth. Yes other than accepting the Crown of Zvonimir and doing the things constitutional monarchs do (create noble titles) and ultimately abdicate from his position he had little to do with the country so? He was quite capable of reigning from Florence. Elizabeth II manages being Queen of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis just fine living in England. Then their are the other counties she formally reigned over Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Tanganyika, Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, Mauritius, South Africa, The Gambia, Rhodesia, Pakistan, Ceylon, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Malta and Fiji. Your criteria for accepting people as monarchs would effectively rule out every European Sovereign because they don't rule they reign! - dwc lr (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

ffs, you're repeating known facts again. 1) He refused to take up office due to major disagreements with his masters in Rome and Zagreb. 2) The legal title is in the hands of King Peter II, who is accepted as the King in the 1941-1943 period. There cannot be two Kings of Croatia at the same time, one must be a pretender. 3) He did not reign or rule because of stated reasons. In effect, he refused to reign until he was ratified by the parliament and Dalmatia was returned to Croatia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So you now accept that not all monarchs rule. He accepted the office the head of the Croatian government begged Victor Emmanuel III to name a member of the Savoy dynasty king of Croatia he choose the Duke of Spoleto who accepted the crown and became Tomislav II. WTF is he supposed to do when he is deprived of his powers and reduced to a figurehead by the Ustaše government this what it is like for most monarchs. Whose pov are you looking at the legal question from the Allies they recognised Peter II as King of Yugoslavia. As Pmanderson has said in the first post of the discussion whose laws to apply is a POV question. With regards to the Axis powers he is de facto and de jure king. With regards to the allied powers he is de facto king but Peter II is the de jure king of Yugoslavia which was occupied and partitioned by the Axis powers. So there you go Peter II was effectively a pretender just like other monarchs who get deposed James II of England, Miguel of Portugal etc. - dwc lr (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

omg, you're not listening: he refused to reign (he did not rule) because of disagreements with the Axis powers, de facto he did not rule, de jure Peter II is the King. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it odd you persist in saying he never reigned (yes we all accept he did not rule). Facts would suggest differently i.e. choosing a Regnal name, abdicating, which look suspiciously like the actions of and options available to a reigning monarch. Prince Roman Petrovich of Russia and Prince Michael of Montenegro both refused rule, reign or have anything to do with the Independent State of Montenegro. The Duke of Spoleto could of refused if he wanted but he accepted it, grudgingly perhaps. He never took up residence because his safety could not be guaranteed so he reigned from the safety of Italy which he was quite capable of doing. These people are listed as monarchs that is why we have Mindaugas II of Lithuania not William, Duke of Urach and Tomislav II not Aimone, Duke of Aosta. - dwc lr (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the meaningless word games already, its really a stupid way to prove any point. We are talking about a person who was de facto not a King of Croatia, and was de jure a pretender to a throne held by Peter II of Yugoslavia. I'm getting seriously tired of repeating myself. To keep it simple, please answer me this: how can both Peter II and the Duke of Spoleto occupy the same throne at the same time, without one being identified as a pretender. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

He is simply not referred to as a pretender that is your opinion. Published sources call him Tomislav II and King of Croatia not a pretender. It's regrettable you fancy changing how he is referred to simply by making things up to push your own pov and change how he is historically referred to in published works. Very unfortunate that your trying to re write history. Peter II was a king in exile while Tomislav II was king same as Zog and Haile Selassie who where king's in exile while Victor Emmanuel III occupied their thrones - dwc lr (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Attacking the consistency of my edits won't win you any arguments. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The complete lack of reliable sources referring to him as a pretender etc. will though. The support for the move is based on peoples own personal opinions and does reflect published works which acknowledge his status. - dwc lr (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, you didn't tell me you're a historian! :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought as much :)

Anyway, we can't go forth with Rjecina's proposal as in either case the Duke did not bear the title "King of the Independent State of Croatia". I still don't understand the problem, its painfully obvious that the man did not rule in any sense of the word. That being said, I hope Pax or Rjecina might change their stance or at least abstain from the poll. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the Duke of Aosta was (at best) titular King of Croatia. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

At best, agreed. This meaningless "function" does not warrant inclusion in the title of the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's all very frustrating & confusing. Take the Confederate States of America and related articles for example. The USA claimed it (the CSA) legally didn't exist; yet after their Civil War, the former Confederate states were treated as former US states (being reduced to military occupied districts). I suppose one could argue, was Jefferson Davis President of the CSA? or merely a former US Senator from Mississippi? GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.