This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
After reading several wikis about royal members born in the past 9 years, I wondered how it is possible for these children to be "noteworthy". None of them have ever done anything noteworthy. Should members of royal families in Wikipedia, who have done nothing what so ever with there lives, have their wikis erased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leveni ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
no they should not. 92.39.198.209 ( talk) 21:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
{Copied from the talk page of Princely Family of Liechtenstein as a useful observation on this article's topic}:
There are two relevant, current usages of the term "royalty". One meaning is "member of a family headed by a king or queen". The other is "member of a family headed by a hereditary sovereign". The first is technically correct, but the second is in wider, common and journalistic usage. The problem with ignoring or rejecting the latter usage is not only that it relegates to royalist jargon a word already in much broader use, but there is no satisfactory substitute for "royalty" in the second meaning. "Princely" does not work, because the vast majority of princely families were merely noble, and never sovereign or semi-sovereign. " Dynastic" doesn't work because it is too poorly understood in this context. "Royalty" clearly conveys to most people membership in a reigning or formerly reigning family, and that is why it has passed into ordinary language with that meaning. Moreover, within monarchist jargon, royalty is still used to refer to members of deposed kingly dynasties, while being withheld from still-reigning dynasties such as the House of Liechtenstein and the House of Luxembourg. Thus, those who are in the order of succession to real thrones are refused, by this jargon, the description "royal", while cadets of families which lost their thrones 150 years ago ( House of Orléans, Hanover) are still referred to as "royal". Since any time these individuals' actual titles are used, it becomes obvious who is and who is not technically entitled to HRH, it is not necessary to pedantically adhere to a narrow jargon in Wiki. The reference to the Liechtenstein dynasty as "royalty" should remain. It's just too late to put that genie back in the bottle. Lethiere 20:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Horledi ( talk) 16:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
1. The population of Hawaii is about 1.2 million. Polynesians make up about 9 percent of our state's population. And out of that 9 percent, Hawaiians are a smaller fraction. Pure blood Hawaiians though make up less than 1 percent of our state's population. That being the case, why are four houses of Hawaiian nobility represented here? I don't think that such is justified. The four houses are House of Kalakaua, House of Kamehameha, House of Kawānanakoa, and House of Laanui-Kalokuokamaile. 80,000 Hawaiians have representation here, four times, and much of the rest of the world is left off of your list.
2. And Manchurians are represented twice in this category! To place the name Qing Dynasty and Aisin Gioro on this list is a duplication of the same thing. The dynasty's name is Qing and their family's name is Aisin-Gioro.
It's about time that Wikipedia editors learn more about history. Yes?
Himyaosui ( talk) 19:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Added Korean dynaties KSentry( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC).
I have a legitimate question. Some of the families that you list here, you cite as being deposed. A royal succession is determined in many different ways, which varies with each individual nation. Some nations are patriarchal, whereas others allow for female successions. In China when a dynasty ends, the former royal family is obligated to name a prince-heir to their family throne. As it is the prince-heir that gives worship to god and prayers for the entire family or clan.
If a succession continues, the above rule is not necessary.
The king of Afghanistan left Afghanistan for Rome. A change of government regimes took place and the royal family was ousted and became no more. Yet, the king of Afghanistan was recognized around the world and three generations of the royal family lived abroad in Rome. China's royal family fled after Manchurian conquest of China. Manchurians are not Chinese. And as in the case of the king of Afghanistan, three generations lived in Hawaii-California (1871-2010).
Question: Why isn't the Afghanistan Royal Family listed? If they are not current, would they not be deposed?
Question: When a royal family is forced to flee for their lives, due to foreign takeovers of their nation or a change in government regimes, does leaving the country based on such circumstances mean that they are no longer royal? According to the Monarchist League, the foremost authority on the subject, if such occurs the family maintains their royal status. Only when they finally renounce their status does it end.
Also, please consult with the Monarchist League on the following matter and definition: A pretender is someone who makes a claim to the throne, whether legitimate or not. This is quite different from an imperial or royal succession being continued in a foreign country, due to political assassinations happening in one's own home country (as in the case of the King of Afghanistan, who was still recognized though ousted from power and living in Rome).
Before people make edits to Wikipedia, they should know facts and definitions much better than they do in order to make edits. Yes?
Rather than for me to do an edit, I thought that the proper thing to do was to bring these matters up for discussion.
Lastly, only Han-Chinese are permitted to rule China. The Yuan Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty are foreign dynasties as they are not Han-Chinese.
Himyaosui ( talk) 19:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia users and editors need learn the distinction between term "deposed" from the term "in exile". The word "deposed" means that a succession has ended. "In exile" means that the Royal family's succession has been continued and that they are living in another country, in hiding and in exile.
Himyaosui ( talk) 19:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I made an edit to Wikipedia today, May 11, 2010, to include my family as a current royal family. I hope that no one minds. The Zhou Dynasty, by the history of China, by court installation, and by official Han-Chinese succession is China's royal/imperial family today. We number about 300 to 600 people living in exile in the United States and about 40 million to 60 million in mainland China. In ancient times, we were known as a royal family, rather than an Imperial family. The last dynasty to rule China, which is now defunct, is the Manchurian Ch'ing Dynasty (Qing Dynasty in the Mandarin language). All Chinese have a one syllable surname. Like Chow, Ching, Chang, Ing, Lum, Kwock, Lai, Yap, etc. Manchurians do not have a Chinese surname and are know as Aisin-Gioro.
In the 1610s to 1620s a number of marriage-ties were created to join the then-ruling Ming Dynasty with the Chou Dynasty in an effort to strengthen the declining Ming Dynasty of the Chun (Chu) surname. When the dynasty fell to a foreign invasion of China, court made a decision to continue the mandate of China as a protection against foreign rule. China had just come out of foreign conquest by Mongolians and so the mandate was continued, rather than to allow it to end.
There is an official succession coming from the ending of the Ming Dynasty to present and it is found at http://zhoudynasty.freewebsites.com, my family's genealogy website. Information is also found in government documents validating my family's claims and Ming Dynasty extended court installation on 10-30-1644.
There are a few China scholars here on Wikipedia, I believe one is Leon Poon, would could, I assume, verify and agree with this private family succession as being official.
If you were Hawaiian, would you like White people governing your nation? If you were an American White, would you like to be under Black domination? The same should apply to indigenous Han-Chinese. So with that in mind, I am including my family as China's current imperial family. Our line of succession has not ended since the ending of China's Ming Dynasty (our cousins by blood on the maternal side of our family tree). http://zhoudynasty.freewebsites.com
Any discussion? The civil thing to do is to discuss a matter, than to immediately erase someone's valid and historically correct posting.
Himyaosui ( talk) 03:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The following fascinating material was moved here from a section in the Nobility article because someone may wish to add citations and incorporate it herein. It predominantly describes and concerns customs and titles related to rulers or monarchs among African peoples rather than aristocrats (between ruling dynasties and commoners in rank), and because the privileges it attributes to members of priestly castes are arguably insufficiently hereditary to fall within the prevalent conceptions of nobility:
FactStraight ( talk) 02:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
To make the article more complete, there is a need to enrich its schema. The first part, which is a definition of the subject has to be supported by good reference materials (footnotes). Before going to the already existing sub-topics, it might be good to give some ensights about the historical development of the concept of royalty, starting with the earliest forms of monarchic societies in the Egyptian, Sumerian, and also that of Ancient China and India, which were cradles of civilization.
Then, an overview of how did the concept of monarchy evolved in various civilizations around the world, which contributed significant impact on the development of human society, will also help present a clearer idea regarding the subject in question. -- Duke of Kaliburan ( talk) 13:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
To be thorough, the article should discuss the negative aspects of monarchies and hereditary succession. There should be an explanation of how democracy has changed the workings of modern monarchic systems and the states that follow them. The article needs information on monarchies of smaller variations and forms (i.e. American and African systems. Finally, there should be a complete overall description of what a monarch is traditionally used for and their capabilities. 74.33.19.132 ( talk) 00:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Moving a discussion here from User talk:Dougweller. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 12:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
== Dispute over tags at Franz, Duke of Bavaria ==
Hello - I have found myself in a bit of a hornet's nest over the issue of deposed royals and their abolished titles. The tags I put on Franz, Duke of Bavaria were taken off,you restored them, someone took them off, I put them back just now with the edit summary "These tags were restored by an admin,Dougweller, do not remove them from this article without discussion on the talk page [1]user Surtsicna immediately removed them again with the edit summary "With all due respect, an admin does not get to add whatever he or she wants to add. The tags are definitely inappropriate. That was also the conclusion of editors responding to your question at the Help desk" [2]. The issue I have with this article and similar ones is not just about the comma in the name of the article but navboxes with "Bavarian royal family" or whatever, there are a lot of these navboxes, and I have many many reliable sources saying that royal German titles were all abolished in 1919, and the use in these boxes of honorific abbreviations which stand for "Her/His Serene/Royal/Imperial and Royal Highness" etc. But the editors on these pages simply remove the tags I put on articles and say, as well as I can make out, that the titles do exist because people still call them by those titles. Can I ask your advice, do you think I should just drop this? And can you help in that situation with the tags on the article? I really, really think they should be on the article but do not want to edit wat. Thanks, Smeat75 ( talk) 19:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear Dougweller: Since the discussion now has such argumetation as uses a less than 2-year-old-baby to prove a point about who is a princess and who isn't- "is not paid/subsidized by any government and does not represent any country" - I'm wondering if it should be moved anywhere. I am moved to bow out if points like that are going to continue to be made. Some people probably thought you were interested and might help straighten things out a bit, improve the quality of the discussion, but I can see where you, too, might be wary. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 23:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I respectfully repeat, with some clarification:
Normally anyone who is paid/subsidized by h government (including h immediate family i.e. spouse & children) to represent h coutry as a royal person, and is listed as such in official publications published by h country's government, can legally be considered to be a king or queen or prince or princess, whereas anyone who is not, cannot. Other people, such as those belonging to former royal families - deposed such - are often treated with such courtesy that titles of royalty still are used for them, but that usage should be considered a courtesy rather than legitimate. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 12:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
There are several issues here, for right now I have opened an RfC about the use of honorific prefixes and "styles and titles" for pretenders and their families, at some later point I may open another RfC about the naming of articles to do with pretenders and their families,so as this RfC is about use of honorifics etc within articles and templates and not in article names, I have opened it at MOS talk: [3] Smeat75 ( talk) 21:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
What about this? /info/en/?search=Emperor_of_Korea#Post_Korean_Empire -- Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii ( talk) 15:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Lee Stephen hayes 196.168.1.004 1 russs street DL15 0RU 2A02:C7F:4783:8F00:A8A1:C4C7:964:1719 ( talk) 20:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Monarchy of Texas Royal Family KINGS 50.220.226.34 ( talk) 04:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
After reading several wikis about royal members born in the past 9 years, I wondered how it is possible for these children to be "noteworthy". None of them have ever done anything noteworthy. Should members of royal families in Wikipedia, who have done nothing what so ever with there lives, have their wikis erased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leveni ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
no they should not. 92.39.198.209 ( talk) 21:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
{Copied from the talk page of Princely Family of Liechtenstein as a useful observation on this article's topic}:
There are two relevant, current usages of the term "royalty". One meaning is "member of a family headed by a king or queen". The other is "member of a family headed by a hereditary sovereign". The first is technically correct, but the second is in wider, common and journalistic usage. The problem with ignoring or rejecting the latter usage is not only that it relegates to royalist jargon a word already in much broader use, but there is no satisfactory substitute for "royalty" in the second meaning. "Princely" does not work, because the vast majority of princely families were merely noble, and never sovereign or semi-sovereign. " Dynastic" doesn't work because it is too poorly understood in this context. "Royalty" clearly conveys to most people membership in a reigning or formerly reigning family, and that is why it has passed into ordinary language with that meaning. Moreover, within monarchist jargon, royalty is still used to refer to members of deposed kingly dynasties, while being withheld from still-reigning dynasties such as the House of Liechtenstein and the House of Luxembourg. Thus, those who are in the order of succession to real thrones are refused, by this jargon, the description "royal", while cadets of families which lost their thrones 150 years ago ( House of Orléans, Hanover) are still referred to as "royal". Since any time these individuals' actual titles are used, it becomes obvious who is and who is not technically entitled to HRH, it is not necessary to pedantically adhere to a narrow jargon in Wiki. The reference to the Liechtenstein dynasty as "royalty" should remain. It's just too late to put that genie back in the bottle. Lethiere 20:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Horledi ( talk) 16:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
1. The population of Hawaii is about 1.2 million. Polynesians make up about 9 percent of our state's population. And out of that 9 percent, Hawaiians are a smaller fraction. Pure blood Hawaiians though make up less than 1 percent of our state's population. That being the case, why are four houses of Hawaiian nobility represented here? I don't think that such is justified. The four houses are House of Kalakaua, House of Kamehameha, House of Kawānanakoa, and House of Laanui-Kalokuokamaile. 80,000 Hawaiians have representation here, four times, and much of the rest of the world is left off of your list.
2. And Manchurians are represented twice in this category! To place the name Qing Dynasty and Aisin Gioro on this list is a duplication of the same thing. The dynasty's name is Qing and their family's name is Aisin-Gioro.
It's about time that Wikipedia editors learn more about history. Yes?
Himyaosui ( talk) 19:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Added Korean dynaties KSentry( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC).
I have a legitimate question. Some of the families that you list here, you cite as being deposed. A royal succession is determined in many different ways, which varies with each individual nation. Some nations are patriarchal, whereas others allow for female successions. In China when a dynasty ends, the former royal family is obligated to name a prince-heir to their family throne. As it is the prince-heir that gives worship to god and prayers for the entire family or clan.
If a succession continues, the above rule is not necessary.
The king of Afghanistan left Afghanistan for Rome. A change of government regimes took place and the royal family was ousted and became no more. Yet, the king of Afghanistan was recognized around the world and three generations of the royal family lived abroad in Rome. China's royal family fled after Manchurian conquest of China. Manchurians are not Chinese. And as in the case of the king of Afghanistan, three generations lived in Hawaii-California (1871-2010).
Question: Why isn't the Afghanistan Royal Family listed? If they are not current, would they not be deposed?
Question: When a royal family is forced to flee for their lives, due to foreign takeovers of their nation or a change in government regimes, does leaving the country based on such circumstances mean that they are no longer royal? According to the Monarchist League, the foremost authority on the subject, if such occurs the family maintains their royal status. Only when they finally renounce their status does it end.
Also, please consult with the Monarchist League on the following matter and definition: A pretender is someone who makes a claim to the throne, whether legitimate or not. This is quite different from an imperial or royal succession being continued in a foreign country, due to political assassinations happening in one's own home country (as in the case of the King of Afghanistan, who was still recognized though ousted from power and living in Rome).
Before people make edits to Wikipedia, they should know facts and definitions much better than they do in order to make edits. Yes?
Rather than for me to do an edit, I thought that the proper thing to do was to bring these matters up for discussion.
Lastly, only Han-Chinese are permitted to rule China. The Yuan Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty are foreign dynasties as they are not Han-Chinese.
Himyaosui ( talk) 19:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia users and editors need learn the distinction between term "deposed" from the term "in exile". The word "deposed" means that a succession has ended. "In exile" means that the Royal family's succession has been continued and that they are living in another country, in hiding and in exile.
Himyaosui ( talk) 19:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I made an edit to Wikipedia today, May 11, 2010, to include my family as a current royal family. I hope that no one minds. The Zhou Dynasty, by the history of China, by court installation, and by official Han-Chinese succession is China's royal/imperial family today. We number about 300 to 600 people living in exile in the United States and about 40 million to 60 million in mainland China. In ancient times, we were known as a royal family, rather than an Imperial family. The last dynasty to rule China, which is now defunct, is the Manchurian Ch'ing Dynasty (Qing Dynasty in the Mandarin language). All Chinese have a one syllable surname. Like Chow, Ching, Chang, Ing, Lum, Kwock, Lai, Yap, etc. Manchurians do not have a Chinese surname and are know as Aisin-Gioro.
In the 1610s to 1620s a number of marriage-ties were created to join the then-ruling Ming Dynasty with the Chou Dynasty in an effort to strengthen the declining Ming Dynasty of the Chun (Chu) surname. When the dynasty fell to a foreign invasion of China, court made a decision to continue the mandate of China as a protection against foreign rule. China had just come out of foreign conquest by Mongolians and so the mandate was continued, rather than to allow it to end.
There is an official succession coming from the ending of the Ming Dynasty to present and it is found at http://zhoudynasty.freewebsites.com, my family's genealogy website. Information is also found in government documents validating my family's claims and Ming Dynasty extended court installation on 10-30-1644.
There are a few China scholars here on Wikipedia, I believe one is Leon Poon, would could, I assume, verify and agree with this private family succession as being official.
If you were Hawaiian, would you like White people governing your nation? If you were an American White, would you like to be under Black domination? The same should apply to indigenous Han-Chinese. So with that in mind, I am including my family as China's current imperial family. Our line of succession has not ended since the ending of China's Ming Dynasty (our cousins by blood on the maternal side of our family tree). http://zhoudynasty.freewebsites.com
Any discussion? The civil thing to do is to discuss a matter, than to immediately erase someone's valid and historically correct posting.
Himyaosui ( talk) 03:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The following fascinating material was moved here from a section in the Nobility article because someone may wish to add citations and incorporate it herein. It predominantly describes and concerns customs and titles related to rulers or monarchs among African peoples rather than aristocrats (between ruling dynasties and commoners in rank), and because the privileges it attributes to members of priestly castes are arguably insufficiently hereditary to fall within the prevalent conceptions of nobility:
FactStraight ( talk) 02:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
To make the article more complete, there is a need to enrich its schema. The first part, which is a definition of the subject has to be supported by good reference materials (footnotes). Before going to the already existing sub-topics, it might be good to give some ensights about the historical development of the concept of royalty, starting with the earliest forms of monarchic societies in the Egyptian, Sumerian, and also that of Ancient China and India, which were cradles of civilization.
Then, an overview of how did the concept of monarchy evolved in various civilizations around the world, which contributed significant impact on the development of human society, will also help present a clearer idea regarding the subject in question. -- Duke of Kaliburan ( talk) 13:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
To be thorough, the article should discuss the negative aspects of monarchies and hereditary succession. There should be an explanation of how democracy has changed the workings of modern monarchic systems and the states that follow them. The article needs information on monarchies of smaller variations and forms (i.e. American and African systems. Finally, there should be a complete overall description of what a monarch is traditionally used for and their capabilities. 74.33.19.132 ( talk) 00:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Moving a discussion here from User talk:Dougweller. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 12:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
== Dispute over tags at Franz, Duke of Bavaria ==
Hello - I have found myself in a bit of a hornet's nest over the issue of deposed royals and their abolished titles. The tags I put on Franz, Duke of Bavaria were taken off,you restored them, someone took them off, I put them back just now with the edit summary "These tags were restored by an admin,Dougweller, do not remove them from this article without discussion on the talk page [1]user Surtsicna immediately removed them again with the edit summary "With all due respect, an admin does not get to add whatever he or she wants to add. The tags are definitely inappropriate. That was also the conclusion of editors responding to your question at the Help desk" [2]. The issue I have with this article and similar ones is not just about the comma in the name of the article but navboxes with "Bavarian royal family" or whatever, there are a lot of these navboxes, and I have many many reliable sources saying that royal German titles were all abolished in 1919, and the use in these boxes of honorific abbreviations which stand for "Her/His Serene/Royal/Imperial and Royal Highness" etc. But the editors on these pages simply remove the tags I put on articles and say, as well as I can make out, that the titles do exist because people still call them by those titles. Can I ask your advice, do you think I should just drop this? And can you help in that situation with the tags on the article? I really, really think they should be on the article but do not want to edit wat. Thanks, Smeat75 ( talk) 19:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear Dougweller: Since the discussion now has such argumetation as uses a less than 2-year-old-baby to prove a point about who is a princess and who isn't- "is not paid/subsidized by any government and does not represent any country" - I'm wondering if it should be moved anywhere. I am moved to bow out if points like that are going to continue to be made. Some people probably thought you were interested and might help straighten things out a bit, improve the quality of the discussion, but I can see where you, too, might be wary. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 23:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I respectfully repeat, with some clarification:
Normally anyone who is paid/subsidized by h government (including h immediate family i.e. spouse & children) to represent h coutry as a royal person, and is listed as such in official publications published by h country's government, can legally be considered to be a king or queen or prince or princess, whereas anyone who is not, cannot. Other people, such as those belonging to former royal families - deposed such - are often treated with such courtesy that titles of royalty still are used for them, but that usage should be considered a courtesy rather than legitimate. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 12:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
There are several issues here, for right now I have opened an RfC about the use of honorific prefixes and "styles and titles" for pretenders and their families, at some later point I may open another RfC about the naming of articles to do with pretenders and their families,so as this RfC is about use of honorifics etc within articles and templates and not in article names, I have opened it at MOS talk: [3] Smeat75 ( talk) 21:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
What about this? /info/en/?search=Emperor_of_Korea#Post_Korean_Empire -- Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii ( talk) 15:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Lee Stephen hayes 196.168.1.004 1 russs street DL15 0RU 2A02:C7F:4783:8F00:A8A1:C4C7:964:1719 ( talk) 20:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Monarchy of Texas Royal Family KINGS 50.220.226.34 ( talk) 04:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)