![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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. he is a prince of denamrk too so he he is call a rpince in greece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.216.86.154 ( talk) 17:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
2003? 1074? den katalaveno. Adam 10:04, 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
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)
Which is innacurate. Again, Constantine was never restored to his throne since 1 June, 1973.
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)
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)
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. Tom 129.93.65.31 04:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Sorry, was not here, was commons after all (I should really read what it says on the screen, right?). Has all been taken care of. Iago4096 17:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iago4096 ( talk • contribs)
Hi
I've got a question concering the forenames of Constantine II of Greece and his sister Princess Irene.
It is common that his (Constantine II of Greece) elder sister Queen Sofía of Spain has four forenames (Sophia Margarita Victoria Friederika).
I think it is somehow "tradition" that the members ou the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg have more than one forename.
Does anybody know the forenames of Constantine II of Greece and Princess Irene? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.197.227.234 (
talk)
22:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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) And Zahopoulos St.!!!!( Peeperman ( talk) 01:03, 4 August 2008 (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)
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)
I thought we agreed, Constantine II's reign ended in 1973. GoodDay ( talk) 18:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the deposed date, to 1973. The 1974 plebesite merely confirmed the Junta's decision. GoodDay ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I propose to delete a few of the articles of the younger children and grandchildren of Constantine II of Greece, specifically everybody born after the monarchy was abolished. There is an obvious dispute about their titles, and I believe all those heated arguments are just a waste of time. I am specifically talking about Princess Theodora of Greece and Denmark, Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark and Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark. The articles are little more than stubs describing their ancestry and justifying the article tiles, but the people themselves are non-notable. I will include this text on their talkpages as well and I wait for replies. Iago4096 09:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
At the very least there should be a repeated reminder that those titles are disputed and that they have no validity in Greece where there are no titles. Politis ( talk) 16:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying that the royal family is not important, Dimadick. They are a part of Greece's history, nobody argues with that. Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark is not a part of Greece's history. He is not notable in any way. The mere fact that he is somebody's grandson, does not justify a Wikipage. The Wikipedia does not feature a page on John Wayne's son just because he is his son, but because he, himself, has done a few interesting things. In a few years, should Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark do something interesting, something notable, he may well get his own page. Iago4096 16:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, LawLord, we all know you agree, we got it. Now could the others tell me please what is notable about these kids? As per WP:NOTDIR (specifically 2, which mentions Genealogy) Wikipedia is not a directory of people. Also, we do not know, if this kid will some day want to become the pretender, he, his father or his grandfather might actually abdicate, so as per WP:NOTCRYSTAL this is an uncertainty. I would put the articles through an WP:AFD, but not before people here agree with me. Also: do you mind keeping the discussion here, and not spread over the other three pages? I know, this is not the article we are talking about at the moment, but it is the common denominator. Iago4096 10:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
BTW they have recently been deleted on the german WP for the same reason [1]. Iago4096 15:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete the grandchildren, keep the rest for now. The grandchildren are entirely non-notable. Charles 18:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree, delete the grandchildren. As for the children, agree that they have played no role in Greek history, they have not been a presence in the Greek diaspora and have never been called to represent Greek interests in any way. Off the record: it is a shame that Greece could never make any use of its former royal family in the international arena. Politis ( talk) 19:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Proposed WP:AFD for Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark now. Let's see how that goes. If he is deleted, I shall continue with the others. Iago4096 09:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Shaking my head in wonder I report that Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark was kept after all. Someone even called WP:SNOW. I do not plan to pursue this any further. Iago4096 14:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iago4096 ( talk • contribs)
Where does he currently live? I know he's got a house in Greece but does he perminantly live there or somewhere else? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 14:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The most time is living in Athens.-- Peeperman ( talk) 13:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
In the later life part of the article it was stated that the Greek Royal Family is actually descended from byzantine royal houses. This has no relevance to the reported fact (which is that they are comsidered by political adversaries to be foreign), be it true or false. An encyclopedia article should not aim to resolve an ongoing political dispute, only to report on the literature about it. It would be acceptable if the article reported that members of the family claim such descent, but that would be inaccurate, as, to the best of my knowledge, they do not. The reference was also unsourced, providing only a link to a website. But the site itself was chaotic (I tried but was unable to follow the genealogy back to the aforementioned families) and did not cite any resources as well. Because of that, and because, as far as i know, this is a claim proposed by monarchists in a highly political and controversial context, I took the liberty of deleting it from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.221.144 ( talk) 19:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Tom 129.93.65.31 05:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
"FearÉIREANN" you are talking pish, son. There are no "republicans" in Greece, there are no people "besieging this place", stop seeing conspiracy theories everywhere. Constantine's treatment was not "Papandreous little feud" it was the will of the 70% of the Greek people and enforcement of the Constitution which does not recognize Kings, aristocrats or other autocratic dictators. I understand that you are displeased and pissed off that the monarchy was abolished. Live with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.135.208 ( talk) 01:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Constantine II has not a drop of Greek blood in him. How can you call yourself royalty of a nation when you have no one iota of genetic heritage to back you up? Constantine is no more Greek than are child of a day laborer from Bulgaria who bears a child within Greece's borders. atty1chgo 1:28 PM, June 8, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atty1chgo ( talk • contribs) 18:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Avg, plenty of Greeks love the King. Stop acting like all Greeks hate him. You just parrot what the government tells us via their 'media.' We Greeks asked George I to be our King. We supported them. They reclaimed much of our lands. We voted to keep them numerous times. In the 1930's by 97% vote! Also, he tried to overthrow the dictators. Read a book. The Greek government is the biggest liars. The US didn't want us to have our King and our claim to Constantinople/Asia Minor. He is a direct descendant of five Greek imperial (Byzantine) dynasties (Monomachos, Comnenos, Laskaris, Angelos, and Paleologos). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoz78 ( talk • contribs) 12:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
This article is an embarrassment for Wikipedia. Needs to be rewritten with a neutral tone, providing information on detractors as well as supporters in equal measure. Much of the biased information is absurd and un-encyclopedic. Reads like a piece of defamation propaganda. Also, the only photo is of the King standing with the dictators he tried to overthrow?-- Nikoz78 ( talk) 16:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Nikoz78 is correct when he states this article is extremely POV. It contains a huge number of sentences with no citation/verification as required by wikipedia. The article is an extremely poor one that reflects badly on the credibility of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.109.91 ( talk) 03:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
He is a direct descendant of five Greek imperial (Byzantine) dynasties (Monomachos, Comnenos, Laskaris, Angelos, and Paleologos). [2]. See also: Byzantine ancestry of Greek Royal Family. This is certainly noteworthy and should be worked into the article.-- Nikoz78 ( talk) 11:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect. He is a direct decedent. If you don't understand, please follow the links. Also, saying that all Royals (or even half the European population, as you claim!) in Europe are Byzantine-descended is non-sense and clearly derived from anti-Royal propagandists.-- Nikoz78 ( talk) 12:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
You're wrong. This is a common theme here (speaking with authority on subjects you don't fully understand). King George I also married Princess Olga Constantinovna of Russia, a direct matrilineal descendant of the Byzantine Empress Euphrosyne Doukaina Kamatera, further adding to their pedigree (not long after the fall of Constantinople). You also forget that when King Otto abdicated, the Greeks searched for another decedent of the Byzantine Royalty. They chose George. King Constantine II went to Mount Athos a few years back, where they consider him a living Saint, have huge painting of him hanging in prominent locations and look to him as the legitimate Byzantine King. The brainwashed Greeks kids today HATE our King. Don't understand it... it was the U.S. that wanted him deposed. The Turkish Republic considered his very existence as a "claim" to Constantinople and Asia Minor (which his Grandfather King Constantine I came VERY close to achieving). And it's funny how some people talk about Venizelos vs the King - as if Venizelos himself was not a staunch supporter of the Greek Royalty. And as for the claim (by you) that the Greek King is not a direct descendant; I don't have the time nor the patience to drawl a map for you. There are references and links provided (even a wiki page here on the matter). If you're so sure your right then just leave it at that. The hatred from the Greek Left for this great man is disturbing. Perhaps we should create a better article on him (without my POV of course), one well referenced and containing only fact. But that would be difficult considering the detractors that lurk here.-- Nikoz78 ( talk) 15:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence that he is a direct descendant. The Greek royal family has never claimed or hinted at such a link, no elected Greek government has adopted such a notion and it was never mentioned in the constitution when Greece was a Constitutional Monarchy. Furthermore the link provided does not make the case and there are no references to people who make that connection. What is more, this 'information' has no place at the start of the article. Therefor I will be deleting it until further evidence is produced and then the info will go to a more appropriate place. Politis ( talk) 11:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC) The evidence is the history. All the European royalty has byzantine ancestry!!! Weddings, weddings etc.... It's self-evident! Peeperman ( talk) 12:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
I noticed this contradiction too! I wish somebody who knows the situation would straighten this one out. Tom 129.93.65.31 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)
This entire article is very POV. It reads like it was pulled from Greece's own version of TMV or something. 71.196.147.201 ( talk) 12:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
this article is completely inacurate and contains many mistakes and am not talking just the smallones that show no relatence to the facts and am nit talking about the smallones -like "Ντίνος Γλυξβούργος" (Tino Glücksburg) is actuallully Ntinos. -I am talking about serious ones like president of Greece is Karolos Papoulias not Costis Stephanopoulos that guy is just his "Lawyer". -Τεος means "overthroned" not "ex" -Also Konstanine is not forbiten to step in greek soil by law but by reason since if he does without diplomatic immunity he will arrested and according international law executed. -The reason for that will be the fact that when he was allowed to leave greece after he was overthroned he manage to keep the fortune he curently had on his, 40billion in US dollars, and his title which intitle him to more he kept those in the grounds as he state "I am still alive" (not a portal refference I assure you) which was followed by Konstantinos Mitsotakis's famous quote "Come back in greece and we can always fix that"(the alive part), there are more mistakes in that article but I don't have the time right now and I don't need a other internet souce to check that any paper encyclopedia and 5th grade scoolbook has those things here in greece. Especially wrong is the this other thing the first and formally elected by the nation of greece king of greece was techically Ioannis Kapodistrias. so yeah plz, pretty plz check those sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.151.94 ( talk) 13:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree very much that Constantine is likely to be the last Greek monarch. (I certainly hope so.) But it is POV to state as fact that he is the last monarch. We cannot know for certain whether a subsequent monarch will exist in Greece. I have changed it to "last monarch to date" to make it clear that he is the last monarch as of now, that there are no indications that that will change, but we cannot predict with certainty the future. 109.79.103.138 ( talk) 21:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm on a sabbatical for a few weeks, so I won't edit this myself, but I wanted to call it to attention. The section on the dictatorship is long and rambling and opinionated, which is bad enough, but it also quotes "Randall J. Dicks, Governor of the Constantian Society of Ohio, USA" for an important point. Without some substantiation for why Mr. Dicks is a relevant or important authority, I can't imagine why we quote him. For background, we have Constantian Society which does not give one much hope that this was really an important perspective. I have not checked the edit history but, having been a Wikipedian for some time, I can rather easily predict what the provenance of that article, and the quote in this article, really is.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Addendum: This edit by User:Aussiebrisguy is where this bit was entered.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Constantine II of Greece. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Constantine II of Greece/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Well-written article, good pics, nice layout, but needs better referencing. Coemgenus 16:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 11:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 12:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Constantine II, now the ex-King of the Hellenes, should have his current remaining title as a "Prince of Denmark" mentioned in his article's lede. As noted in the Line of succession to the Danish throne, the legitimate male-line descendants of Christian IX of Denmark are titled "Prince of Denmark" (Prins av Danemark) since issuance of the Royal Danish Proclamation of 1853, with the exception of those branches which discontinued use of the title (Norwegian 1905, British 1947) and those which have forfeited it due to marriages in violation of Denmark's 1665 Kongelov ( Counts av Rosenborg). Members of the Greek royal dynasty, however, have always retained and used the Danish princely title, and still bear it, including the head of the deposed Greek royal house, former King Constantine II. All of those now living who are titled "Prince of Denmark", including Constantine and his legitimate descendants, as attested by such reliable sources as the Almanach de Gotha (1941), Burke's Royal Families of the World (1977), Le Petit Gotha (2002) and the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Fürstliches Hăuser, vol. 19 (2011), are not only attributed the title in their respective Wikipedia articles (if they have one, as all the adults do except Prince Philippos, b. 1986), but also have the title expressly included in the lede of their articles. Since Constantine II is no longer (and does not claim to be) a reigning monarch yet remains closely affiliated to the Danish Royal family as the consort of Margrethe II of Denmark's sister, Anne-Marie, all the more reason that the only royal title he bears under an extant monarchy, the Kingdom of Denmark, be included in that lede -- as it is for all other adult males entitled to it. I am editing accordingly. FactStraight ( talk) 07:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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. he is a prince of denamrk too so he he is call a rpince in greece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.216.86.154 ( talk) 17:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
2003? 1074? den katalaveno. Adam 10:04, 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
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)
Which is innacurate. Again, Constantine was never restored to his throne since 1 June, 1973.
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)
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)
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. Tom 129.93.65.31 04:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Sorry, was not here, was commons after all (I should really read what it says on the screen, right?). Has all been taken care of. Iago4096 17:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iago4096 ( talk • contribs)
Hi
I've got a question concering the forenames of Constantine II of Greece and his sister Princess Irene.
It is common that his (Constantine II of Greece) elder sister Queen Sofía of Spain has four forenames (Sophia Margarita Victoria Friederika).
I think it is somehow "tradition" that the members ou the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg have more than one forename.
Does anybody know the forenames of Constantine II of Greece and Princess Irene? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.197.227.234 (
talk)
22:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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) And Zahopoulos St.!!!!( Peeperman ( talk) 01:03, 4 August 2008 (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)
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)
I thought we agreed, Constantine II's reign ended in 1973. GoodDay ( talk) 18:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the deposed date, to 1973. The 1974 plebesite merely confirmed the Junta's decision. GoodDay ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I propose to delete a few of the articles of the younger children and grandchildren of Constantine II of Greece, specifically everybody born after the monarchy was abolished. There is an obvious dispute about their titles, and I believe all those heated arguments are just a waste of time. I am specifically talking about Princess Theodora of Greece and Denmark, Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark and Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark. The articles are little more than stubs describing their ancestry and justifying the article tiles, but the people themselves are non-notable. I will include this text on their talkpages as well and I wait for replies. Iago4096 09:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
At the very least there should be a repeated reminder that those titles are disputed and that they have no validity in Greece where there are no titles. Politis ( talk) 16:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying that the royal family is not important, Dimadick. They are a part of Greece's history, nobody argues with that. Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark is not a part of Greece's history. He is not notable in any way. The mere fact that he is somebody's grandson, does not justify a Wikipage. The Wikipedia does not feature a page on John Wayne's son just because he is his son, but because he, himself, has done a few interesting things. In a few years, should Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark do something interesting, something notable, he may well get his own page. Iago4096 16:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, LawLord, we all know you agree, we got it. Now could the others tell me please what is notable about these kids? As per WP:NOTDIR (specifically 2, which mentions Genealogy) Wikipedia is not a directory of people. Also, we do not know, if this kid will some day want to become the pretender, he, his father or his grandfather might actually abdicate, so as per WP:NOTCRYSTAL this is an uncertainty. I would put the articles through an WP:AFD, but not before people here agree with me. Also: do you mind keeping the discussion here, and not spread over the other three pages? I know, this is not the article we are talking about at the moment, but it is the common denominator. Iago4096 10:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
BTW they have recently been deleted on the german WP for the same reason [1]. Iago4096 15:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete the grandchildren, keep the rest for now. The grandchildren are entirely non-notable. Charles 18:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree, delete the grandchildren. As for the children, agree that they have played no role in Greek history, they have not been a presence in the Greek diaspora and have never been called to represent Greek interests in any way. Off the record: it is a shame that Greece could never make any use of its former royal family in the international arena. Politis ( talk) 19:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Proposed WP:AFD for Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark now. Let's see how that goes. If he is deleted, I shall continue with the others. Iago4096 09:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Shaking my head in wonder I report that Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark was kept after all. Someone even called WP:SNOW. I do not plan to pursue this any further. Iago4096 14:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iago4096 ( talk • contribs)
Where does he currently live? I know he's got a house in Greece but does he perminantly live there or somewhere else? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 14:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The most time is living in Athens.-- Peeperman ( talk) 13:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
In the later life part of the article it was stated that the Greek Royal Family is actually descended from byzantine royal houses. This has no relevance to the reported fact (which is that they are comsidered by political adversaries to be foreign), be it true or false. An encyclopedia article should not aim to resolve an ongoing political dispute, only to report on the literature about it. It would be acceptable if the article reported that members of the family claim such descent, but that would be inaccurate, as, to the best of my knowledge, they do not. The reference was also unsourced, providing only a link to a website. But the site itself was chaotic (I tried but was unable to follow the genealogy back to the aforementioned families) and did not cite any resources as well. Because of that, and because, as far as i know, this is a claim proposed by monarchists in a highly political and controversial context, I took the liberty of deleting it from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.221.144 ( talk) 19:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Tom 129.93.65.31 05:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
"FearÉIREANN" you are talking pish, son. There are no "republicans" in Greece, there are no people "besieging this place", stop seeing conspiracy theories everywhere. Constantine's treatment was not "Papandreous little feud" it was the will of the 70% of the Greek people and enforcement of the Constitution which does not recognize Kings, aristocrats or other autocratic dictators. I understand that you are displeased and pissed off that the monarchy was abolished. Live with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.135.208 ( talk) 01:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Constantine II has not a drop of Greek blood in him. How can you call yourself royalty of a nation when you have no one iota of genetic heritage to back you up? Constantine is no more Greek than are child of a day laborer from Bulgaria who bears a child within Greece's borders. atty1chgo 1:28 PM, June 8, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atty1chgo ( talk • contribs) 18:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Avg, plenty of Greeks love the King. Stop acting like all Greeks hate him. You just parrot what the government tells us via their 'media.' We Greeks asked George I to be our King. We supported them. They reclaimed much of our lands. We voted to keep them numerous times. In the 1930's by 97% vote! Also, he tried to overthrow the dictators. Read a book. The Greek government is the biggest liars. The US didn't want us to have our King and our claim to Constantinople/Asia Minor. He is a direct descendant of five Greek imperial (Byzantine) dynasties (Monomachos, Comnenos, Laskaris, Angelos, and Paleologos). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoz78 ( talk • contribs) 12:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
This article is an embarrassment for Wikipedia. Needs to be rewritten with a neutral tone, providing information on detractors as well as supporters in equal measure. Much of the biased information is absurd and un-encyclopedic. Reads like a piece of defamation propaganda. Also, the only photo is of the King standing with the dictators he tried to overthrow?-- Nikoz78 ( talk) 16:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Nikoz78 is correct when he states this article is extremely POV. It contains a huge number of sentences with no citation/verification as required by wikipedia. The article is an extremely poor one that reflects badly on the credibility of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.109.91 ( talk) 03:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
He is a direct descendant of five Greek imperial (Byzantine) dynasties (Monomachos, Comnenos, Laskaris, Angelos, and Paleologos). [2]. See also: Byzantine ancestry of Greek Royal Family. This is certainly noteworthy and should be worked into the article.-- Nikoz78 ( talk) 11:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect. He is a direct decedent. If you don't understand, please follow the links. Also, saying that all Royals (or even half the European population, as you claim!) in Europe are Byzantine-descended is non-sense and clearly derived from anti-Royal propagandists.-- Nikoz78 ( talk) 12:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
You're wrong. This is a common theme here (speaking with authority on subjects you don't fully understand). King George I also married Princess Olga Constantinovna of Russia, a direct matrilineal descendant of the Byzantine Empress Euphrosyne Doukaina Kamatera, further adding to their pedigree (not long after the fall of Constantinople). You also forget that when King Otto abdicated, the Greeks searched for another decedent of the Byzantine Royalty. They chose George. King Constantine II went to Mount Athos a few years back, where they consider him a living Saint, have huge painting of him hanging in prominent locations and look to him as the legitimate Byzantine King. The brainwashed Greeks kids today HATE our King. Don't understand it... it was the U.S. that wanted him deposed. The Turkish Republic considered his very existence as a "claim" to Constantinople and Asia Minor (which his Grandfather King Constantine I came VERY close to achieving). And it's funny how some people talk about Venizelos vs the King - as if Venizelos himself was not a staunch supporter of the Greek Royalty. And as for the claim (by you) that the Greek King is not a direct descendant; I don't have the time nor the patience to drawl a map for you. There are references and links provided (even a wiki page here on the matter). If you're so sure your right then just leave it at that. The hatred from the Greek Left for this great man is disturbing. Perhaps we should create a better article on him (without my POV of course), one well referenced and containing only fact. But that would be difficult considering the detractors that lurk here.-- Nikoz78 ( talk) 15:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence that he is a direct descendant. The Greek royal family has never claimed or hinted at such a link, no elected Greek government has adopted such a notion and it was never mentioned in the constitution when Greece was a Constitutional Monarchy. Furthermore the link provided does not make the case and there are no references to people who make that connection. What is more, this 'information' has no place at the start of the article. Therefor I will be deleting it until further evidence is produced and then the info will go to a more appropriate place. Politis ( talk) 11:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC) The evidence is the history. All the European royalty has byzantine ancestry!!! Weddings, weddings etc.... It's self-evident! Peeperman ( talk) 12:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
I noticed this contradiction too! I wish somebody who knows the situation would straighten this one out. Tom 129.93.65.31 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)
This entire article is very POV. It reads like it was pulled from Greece's own version of TMV or something. 71.196.147.201 ( talk) 12:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
this article is completely inacurate and contains many mistakes and am not talking just the smallones that show no relatence to the facts and am nit talking about the smallones -like "Ντίνος Γλυξβούργος" (Tino Glücksburg) is actuallully Ntinos. -I am talking about serious ones like president of Greece is Karolos Papoulias not Costis Stephanopoulos that guy is just his "Lawyer". -Τεος means "overthroned" not "ex" -Also Konstanine is not forbiten to step in greek soil by law but by reason since if he does without diplomatic immunity he will arrested and according international law executed. -The reason for that will be the fact that when he was allowed to leave greece after he was overthroned he manage to keep the fortune he curently had on his, 40billion in US dollars, and his title which intitle him to more he kept those in the grounds as he state "I am still alive" (not a portal refference I assure you) which was followed by Konstantinos Mitsotakis's famous quote "Come back in greece and we can always fix that"(the alive part), there are more mistakes in that article but I don't have the time right now and I don't need a other internet souce to check that any paper encyclopedia and 5th grade scoolbook has those things here in greece. Especially wrong is the this other thing the first and formally elected by the nation of greece king of greece was techically Ioannis Kapodistrias. so yeah plz, pretty plz check those sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.151.94 ( talk) 13:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree very much that Constantine is likely to be the last Greek monarch. (I certainly hope so.) But it is POV to state as fact that he is the last monarch. We cannot know for certain whether a subsequent monarch will exist in Greece. I have changed it to "last monarch to date" to make it clear that he is the last monarch as of now, that there are no indications that that will change, but we cannot predict with certainty the future. 109.79.103.138 ( talk) 21:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm on a sabbatical for a few weeks, so I won't edit this myself, but I wanted to call it to attention. The section on the dictatorship is long and rambling and opinionated, which is bad enough, but it also quotes "Randall J. Dicks, Governor of the Constantian Society of Ohio, USA" for an important point. Without some substantiation for why Mr. Dicks is a relevant or important authority, I can't imagine why we quote him. For background, we have Constantian Society which does not give one much hope that this was really an important perspective. I have not checked the edit history but, having been a Wikipedian for some time, I can rather easily predict what the provenance of that article, and the quote in this article, really is.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Addendum: This edit by User:Aussiebrisguy is where this bit was entered.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Constantine II of Greece. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Constantine II of Greece/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Well-written article, good pics, nice layout, but needs better referencing. Coemgenus 16:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 11:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 12:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Constantine II, now the ex-King of the Hellenes, should have his current remaining title as a "Prince of Denmark" mentioned in his article's lede. As noted in the Line of succession to the Danish throne, the legitimate male-line descendants of Christian IX of Denmark are titled "Prince of Denmark" (Prins av Danemark) since issuance of the Royal Danish Proclamation of 1853, with the exception of those branches which discontinued use of the title (Norwegian 1905, British 1947) and those which have forfeited it due to marriages in violation of Denmark's 1665 Kongelov ( Counts av Rosenborg). Members of the Greek royal dynasty, however, have always retained and used the Danish princely title, and still bear it, including the head of the deposed Greek royal house, former King Constantine II. All of those now living who are titled "Prince of Denmark", including Constantine and his legitimate descendants, as attested by such reliable sources as the Almanach de Gotha (1941), Burke's Royal Families of the World (1977), Le Petit Gotha (2002) and the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Fürstliches Hăuser, vol. 19 (2011), are not only attributed the title in their respective Wikipedia articles (if they have one, as all the adults do except Prince Philippos, b. 1986), but also have the title expressly included in the lede of their articles. Since Constantine II is no longer (and does not claim to be) a reigning monarch yet remains closely affiliated to the Danish Royal family as the consort of Margrethe II of Denmark's sister, Anne-Marie, all the more reason that the only royal title he bears under an extant monarchy, the Kingdom of Denmark, be included in that lede -- as it is for all other adult males entitled to it. I am editing accordingly. FactStraight ( talk) 07:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)