Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 14

Monarchical titles (continued)

My suggested alternative is to use both upfront, but to distinguish them and avoid clutter, the royal name should be in bold, then a comma, then the personal name should be in bold italics.

For example:

• Rainier III, Rainier Louis Henri Maxence Bertrand de Grimaldi (born May 31, 1923), is the hereditary Prince of Monaco.
• Elizabeth II, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor (born April 21, 1926) is the Queen and head of state of the United Kingdom (and 16 Commonwealth Realms).
• Queen Victoria, Alexandrina Victoria Wettin of the Royal House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (May 24, 1819 - January 22, 1901) was Queen of the United Kingdom for a record sixty-three years, seven months, and two days (June 20, 1837 - January 22, 1901).
• John Paul II, Karol Jozef Wojtyla (pronounced Voy-tee-wah) (born 18 May, 1920) was born in Wadowice, Poland.

I tried this proposal out in the Rainier III of Monaco article and it worked well and looked less alkward than the alternatives. (That article originally had his personal name up front, with his princely title buried further down the line). We also need I think to sort out a standardised opening paragraphs. The above cut and paste jobs show some of the variations we have. I would suggest the following form:

OPENING PARAGRAPH: {monarchical title} {royal name} {ordinal if more than one}, {personal name (surname if known)}, of the Royal House of {name}, (dates) . . . information on their throne.

SECOND PARAGRAPH: 'x' was born . . .

I think putting in the Royal House details is useful given that many royals have different surnames from their Royal House/Royal Family name, eg, Victoria's surname was Wettin but her Royal House name was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. I think (though I am by no means certain, that Russian Royals technically weren't Romanovs but of the Royal House of Romanov. If we don't know, we can leave out the surname altogether as the Royal House name is there. BTW Royal House is already defined on wiki so all we need to do is put in Royal House and people if they don't know what it is can go to the linked page.

Putting in their monarchical title up front also solves a problem that arises if they don't have an ordinal. Starting off an article with Victoria or Juan Carlos doesn't work as well as with Elizabeth II, Rainier III, etc. It reads alwardly and doesn't tell you their key defining characteristic up front, that they were/are a monarch, that fact often not being stated until the end of the sentence and not being immediately obvious in the absence of an ordinal.

In practice this would turn the QEII and JPII entries into:

• Queen Elizabeth II, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor of the Royal House of Windsor (born April 21, 1926) is Queen of the United Kingdom and 16 Commonwealth Realms, including Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

• John Paul II, Karol Jozef Wojtyla (pronounced Voy-tee-wah) (born 18 May, 1920) is pope of the Roman Catholic Church and head of state of Vatican City. He was elected to the papacy in October 1978 following the sudden death of Pope John Paul I on September 29, 1978.

Any observations, folks?

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other but would like to note the WikiStandard of placing the real birth name of a person first, then giving the date range of their life in parenthesis and finally give the name or names that they are most widely known as. See Billy the Kid for an example. The reasoning is that the name by which a person dies under is sometimes not the same as the name they were born under and the placement of the birth/death parenthesis gives the impression that whatever name comes before it was the name the person was born under. So giving the birth name first is more precise. --mav 01:23 29 May 2003 (UTC)

That can work OK when dealing with ordinary people but with monarchs I think it is unworkable. For example, that would produce Margrethe Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg as the opening words of the page on Queen Margrethe II of Denmark. Nobody, not even her parents ever called her that. She was and is known either as Princess Margrethe or Queen Margrethe. Nobody ever used the name "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, they used Princess Elizabeth or Queen Elizabeth. People would begin scratching their heads with puzzlement if they found themselves being told an article was about Alexandrina Victoria Wettin', a name they never would have heard of, as she was only ever known as Princess Victoria or Queen Victoria. And nobody but a historian would know who Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto is, because the entire world knows him (if they know him at all) as Pope Pius X.

That is why we don't use personal names as the article names for royalty, using Margrethe II of Denmark rather than [[Margrethe Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg]]. In the case of people who had a 'proper name' and then got a nickname, like Billy the Kid, it is logical to put the proper name first. But royal names are basically something never used; they are put on a birth certificate and forgotten about. To put what was effectively a non-used name ahead of the real one would in those cases be wrong in my view. It would also be potentially seen as POV; one of the things republicans often do, for example, is to use personal names instead of royal names as their way of expressing their republicanism and giving the two fingers to monarchy. In Greece, even though international naming traditions suggest that a deposed monarch who has not abdicated is called by his reign name for his lifetime (or until he abdicates), but with the title dying with him, left wing republicans insist of referring to exiled King Constantine II as Constantine Glücksburg . Were we to put that name first in the article, we would be seen to be accepting that they are right and so be seen by Greek republicans and Greek monarchists as taking one of the argument. Instead the article follows the strict naming traditions regarding deposed monarchs, not getting tangled up in Greek political arguments.

The standard history approach to naming monarchs or popes is:

• use highest regal title first;
• for popes, papal title put first;
• personal names if used at all (and most don't) treated as subsidary because they never were actually used outside the family circle if even there;
• Because they lack an ordinal to enable people to tell consorts apart, consorts revert to maiden name or maiden title after their death or more usually after a period of time following their deaths when they have reverted from having a contemporary identificaton to being merely a historical figure.

What I am proposing is to follow this standard on royal naming just as we do in terms of article title, non use of styles in article titles, etc. Using unused generally unrecognisable names first would in my view be anything but precise. FearÉIREANN 03:27 29 May 2003 (UTC)

I think that this is a good way of building on articles that we already have in a consistent way. In the first couple of years we just wanted to get a decent number of stubs giving a broad shallow coverage, so the haphazard way we've worked (myself particularly) has been reasonable. Originally the article titles were purely for disambiguation (so that we could have separate articles on Alexander) and we didn't worry about their accuracy as the information was supposed to be handled in the article but nowadays we are taking a rather different line. In any case, the easy work is pretty well done, and it's definitely time to give a deeper more consistent treatment to this area for those who are interested in it.

What you've suggested is good for the intro paragraph and I'd be quite happy with it as it stands but I feel that it has the flavour of a Wikiproject. I think that it just might be worthwhile extending it to a simple template, listing not just the names, titles and main significant feature but also the general form of the article, ie when they became significant and why, when they stopped and why (which is in the papacy example that you have above but not in the Royal example). Note that I'm not suggesting that the template should contain the items that I've mentioned, just that some template would be good as it would give people a checklist of things to research, thus, with luck, improving the quality of all contributors' additions (as the other Wikiprojects, by and large, have done for their subject areas). -- Derek Ross 01:59 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Thought I'd pipe in. A couple of thoughts - I mostly agree with jtd, but I have a few quibbles. One of them has nothing to do with standards, but is just a peeve (and one that's been long growing on me every time I look at the Victoria page). She was a Wettin or Saxe-Coburg-Gotha only by marriage. She was a Guelph or Hanoverian by birth. None of the other reigning female monarchs of England/Great Britain/The UK are referred to as being members of their husband's royal house. Mary I is a Tudor, not a Habsburg; Mary II and Anne are Stuarts, not Orange-Nassau and Denmark/Oldenburg. And Queen Elizabeth II is neither a Mountbatten nor an Oldenburg/Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg/Greece&Denmark (Oh, and the Romanovs were not Romanovs in any sense. The official name of the house was the Imperial House of Russia. The dynasty name, according to the Gotha, was Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov.)

But, more seriously, a couple of thoughts: the idea of a surname for monarchs is somewhat silly in general. To say, for instance, that Ludwig II of Bavaria's surname was Wittelsbach doesn't really mean anything. The dynasty is called the Wittelsbach's because the earliest member of the dynasty we know about ruled a place called Wittelsbach. The same is true for most German dynasty names. Further, it runs into problems with recent members of German royal houses, who have taken their royal title names and made them into their surnames. Although the current head of the Royal House of Prussia is a member of the Hohenzollern dynasty (in the same sense that Ludwig II was a member of the Wittelsbach dynasty), his surname is actually "Prinz von Preussen". In general, I don't think the surname concept works very well for most royals, and should be abandoned. House name, on the other hand, is a useful distinction, and ought to be noted. A further suggestion: I think it would be helpful for both noble and royal figures whose name customarily changed throughout their life to give some indication of the styles by which they were known throughout their life, and the dates on which they were called each. (This would be if there were some sort of box, I think).

I have rambling further thoughts, but they seem to be getting more annoying as I go on, so I'll stop and wait. john 03:59 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Okay, my original thoughts were still too rambling and annoying, despite my deleting the most rambling and annoying parts. So: basically agree, this seems a good way to do it, except I think we should be very wary of surnames unless they were actually used to refer to the person (as, for instance, the Spanish monarch, who is actually called, so far as I know, Juan Carlos de Borbon y Borbon). One thing I do think, though, is that some thought should be put into titles of princesses who married princes of foreign houses (who never became reigning monarchs). Should they, like royal consorts, be referred to by their maiden name? This seems the simplest way to do it. thus, Lady Henrietta Anne Stuart and Countess Palatine Elisabeth Charlotte of Simmern (or Elisabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate) for the wives of Louis XIV's little brother, rather than "Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orleans" or "Elisabeth Charlotte, Duchess of Orleans"; or Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg for George III's mother, rather than "Augusta, Princess of Wales". Does this work? john 04:13 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Good points. Re surnames, I agree. I created the Royal House to try to get around the surnames nightmare. The trouble is (as a few of us found when we tried first to sort out the royal naming mess that wiki used to have) that if don't put in a surname, someone else will, and usually what they come up with is absolute cobblers. I have been unhappy with the surnames used for Russian royalty for a while so I am so glad someone knows the right one. Re Victoria, the problem is that her marriage changed the Royal House name in the way, for example Queen Mary I's marriage didn't, by the simple fact that she had no children and so the throne was inherited by her half-sister who was also a Tudor. So it seemed wrong to use her post-marital Royal House name and pre-marital surname and her pre-marital Royal House name would perhaps be wrong (or at least liable to be changed by someone who insists that of course it should be Saxe-Coburg-Gotha! And if you don't put in a surname, someone else will, calling her God knows what (probably Windsor or Saxe-Coburg-Gotha!). Victoria herself accepted that her surname (well marital) surname was Wettin though to coin a phrase, she was 'not amused'!

As to changing styles, great idea. I think a text book would be ideal for that if we can do that. Re the rest - I'm too tired to think. Its 6.04am and I swore I would not spend all night on wiki, or at least not see another dawn. Not seeing it? It is grinning in the window at me, so, as we say in Irish Tá mé ag dul go dtí mo leaba (I am going to my bed.) Slán agus oiche mhaith. FearÉIREANN 05:04 29 May 2003 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your suggestions above, although it seems a bit of a Rolls-Royce solution. (Nothing wrong with that, I suppose.) As usual, I say let's not be too hasty in changing things that work, even if they are not 100% satisfactory. I didn't even know there was a convention (mentioned by mav above) of putting the birth name first in an article. I don't think I've ever done that unless the birth name happened to be the best-known name. But, broadly speaking, I'm happy to go along with your proposal for the time being.

I have to say, also, that I've been a bit concerned about the growing habit (maybe "habit" is the wrong word - "tendency" is perhaps more polite) to worry about including every possible title the person has ever had or used, including the names of all countries they've ever been monarch of, their "official" title even if it's one they've never used. You could argue that this is the function of an encyclopedia, but it doesn't half make for controversy without contributing very much to knowledge. Deb 17:24 29 May 2003 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to? Are you referring to somebody who puts the full titulary of King Juan Carlos (who is, sadly, the only monarch to retain a ridiculously long titulary, even if it isn't usually used)? Or putting in a nobleman's subsidiary titles? (I sometimes do that, and sometimes don't. I don't see what harm it does). Or referring to the different styles by which a person was known throughout their life (Lord Robert Cecil to Viscount Cranborne to the Marquess of Salisbury)? john 20:58 29 May 2003 (UTC)

None of those things. In fact, I wasn't referring to "somebody", but to a general trend. For example, the second paragraph of the article on Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, or the listing of Sophie Wessex's full official title ("Princess Edward, blah-di-blah"). It's not that I think it does any "harm" exactly, I just think there are more interesting things to note about those people. Don't get me wrong, I care as much about correct titles as anyone (well, you know that from experience), but I don't want to get so hung up on it that everything else goes out the window. Deb 21:13 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't offended, I just wasn't sure exactly what you were referring to. I think what you're saying is similar to my first example (Juan Carlos's official titulary, which is insanely long, and includes his status as Archduke of Austria and King of Jerusalem, among other places not in Spain). I think that can sometimes be interesting, but sometimes not. I agree that Princess Edward is kind of silly (she was born Sophie Rhys-Jones, and is now known as HRH The Countess of Wessex, calling herself "Sophie Wessex" in her professional life when she had one) And I certainly agree that having actual information about the person is probably more worthwhile, so long as the title is fairly correct. In general, I think it's much more important to know what the person was actually called than to worry about all the titles they held. john 21:25 29 May 2003 (UTC)

A further question I thought I'd bring up here, to see what the other title gurus think. The page for Empress Elisabeth, Franz Joseph's wife was formerly at "Elisabeth of Austria". I insisted, over the lukewarm opposition of the Sisi admirers, on moving it to "Elisabeth of Bavaria", since she was born "Elisabeth, Duchess in Bavaria" (and Elisabeth in Bavaria wouldn't make sense, while Elisabeth, Duchess in Bavaria would imply that she was never a reigning monarch's consort). Was this the right thing to do? john 21:25 29 May 2003 (UTC)

A quick glance at my biog dic finds her under "Elizabeth of Bavaria", so I would say (not knowing a heck of a lot about it) that you were spot on. Deb 21:30 29 May 2003 (UTC)

RE use of real names: How about the format used at Benny Goodman which gives the most widely-used name, then the birth name, then the bith/death parens? --mav 09:20 31 May 2003 (UTC)

How about most widely used name, birth/death parens, then other names the person used, in chronological order if more than two? That accommodates people who have been known by more than two names (which is fairly common among British nobility, or European royalty) john 17:11 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Good idea. One quibble - Benny Goodman was a colloqual name, in effect a stage name, such as is Madonna, Bono, etc. However in royalty, each name is a real name, not a colloqual name, nor a stage name. So one cannot say Eliazabeth II, born Elizabeth Alexandra Mary (if that it what it was - I'm too lazy to check!!!) because she still is EAM and QEII simultaneously. He was not born with one and moved to the other. Born suggests she moved from one to the other, which would be inaccurate in the case of royalty. That is why I suggested the form reign name, personal name, and that given a personal name may be quite long, rather than giving a potentially confusing opening line with people presuming they were all one together, they would be giving equality by bolding but separated and clearly shown to be separate by italicising the latter following a comma. Subsequent titles could be plain italicised. For example:

Elizabeth II, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor (born [1926]) is the Queen of the . . . . . . She was born as Princess Elizabeth of York, daughter of the then second in line to the throne, Prince Albert, Duke of York and his wife Elizabeth. When he unexpectedly became king in 1936, following the abdication of his oldest brother, Edward VIII, Elizabeth became simply Princess Elizabeth and first in line to the throne as Heir Presumptive.

She became simply The Princess Elizabeth of course. Somewhere in the article styles should be noted, as well. Otherwise, this looks pretty solid. john 22:51 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Two points: Re styles. I could not agree with you more. I have been in favour of that from day 1. Re The Princess Elizabeth - If this was my encyclopædia, I would have it that way. But it isn't. I know from the almightly battle we faced to kill of the nonsensical Mr. [[Charles Windsor]] etc that there is a loud minority for whom titles of any sort seem stupid, nonsensical and POV. Wiki has got to strike a balance between (i) accuracy, (ii) usability, andf (iii) acceptability. That often means that we go for 80% accuracy rather than 100% accuracy; eg, we have Charles, Prince of Wales even though that technically is wrong, because the correct version, The Prince of Wales is not workable. Using The Princess Elizabeth might well be a step too far for those who already find our current reasonably accurate but 'monarchist' titles "too much" for their republican sensibilities. It would also require renaming and the changing of texts throughout wiki.

I would suggest dealing with this in the form of a footnote, with the generally used form in the text and the absolutely accurate version as a footnote. That would produce the following.

Example of Text

Elizabeth II, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor (born [1926]) is the Queen of the . . . . . . She was born as Princess Elizabeth of York, daughter of the then second in line to the throne, Prince Albert, Duke of York and his wife Elizabeth. When he unexpectedly became king in 1936, following the abdication of his oldest brother, Edward VIII, Elizabeth became simply Princess Elizabeth¹ and first in line to the throne as Heir Presumptive.

Footnote

¹ Technically all royal princes and royal princesses use the word the before their princely name. Hence the above would be The Princess Elizabeth. However though strictly accurate that form is not generally used.

FearÉIREANN 03:20 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that while we not especially worry whether she's called "Princess Elizabeth" or "the Princess Elizabeth" in the texts of articles, a section of the article which details her various styles through the years should give the correct style.

Thus:

Elizabeth II, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor (born [1926]) is the Queen of the . . . . . . She was born as HRH Princess Elizabeth of York, daughter of the then second in line to the throne, Prince Albert, Duke of York and his wife Elizabeth. When he unexpectedly became king in 1936, following the abdication of his oldest brother, Edward VIII, Elizabeth became simply HRH The Princess Elizabeth¹ and first in line to the throne as Heir Presumptive.

Then, for the rest of the article, anything about her before her accession can be

"Princess Elizabeth" (I suppose her time as HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh should also be mentioned), without worrying too much that that's not completely accurate. john 03:48 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I just started a page to detail the various royal and noble styles. Currently, I only have those for royal and princely families, and for the nobility of Britain and Germany. If anyone wants to help out by adding other countries, that'd be great. (I also fear that I haven't done the best job of explaining what a style is. Perhaps I should work on that.) john 04:13 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Anyone see the Classical Brit Awards? They introduced the Duchess of Kent as "Katherine Kent". Who wants to ring Buckingham Palace? Deb 07:04 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I put in the following on the Wikipedia:naming conventions (names and titles) page, Other Royals, point number 6:

For visual clarity, an article should begin with the form {royal title} {name} {ordinal if appropriate}, full name (+ surname if known) with the former in bold (3 's) and the latter in bold italics (5 's). In practice, this means for example an article on Britain's Queen Elizabeth should begin Queen Elizabeth II, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor - with the royal title and name in bold and the personal name in bold italics. Using this format makes sure all the naming information is instantly visible with the distinction highlighted through italics. Other information on royal titles should be listed where appropriate in chronological order.

Does everyone agree with this wording? FearÉIREANN 18:24 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Yep - sounds good to me - 'course i was the one who added the surnames for Nicholas II and his daughters - there is plenty of evidence of them using Romanov (or Romanova for the females) as their surname after the Revolution - many of Olga Nikolaevna's letters from Tobolsk end with "Olga R." for example.

Although finding John edited it out of the articles makes me more than a little upset!

PMelvilleAustin 04:43 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

I have 1. merged in Wikipedia:History standards, which had a lot of duplication (and was even, in some respects, outdated by later conventions emerged here). At the same time, I have 2. reordered things a bit (monarchs, other royals, clerical names, other non-royal names seemed more logical to me) and 3. tried to clean up the formatting of this page, most notably, added boldface keywords to many rules for easier lookup, and replaced the "nowiki" formatting with italics for better readability.

I did not intend to make any semantic changes; if I have, it's a mistake. Hope everybody likes the changes, the page was on the brink of turning into a major mess. :-) djmutex 15:45 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Only two minor glitches. Re the use the most common form of name - as it was put in it would be an invitation to chaos. There are some people who fought tooth and nail to avoid using the naming conventions by referring to that rule. (The Charles Windsor rubbish was a classic example.) If that line appeared as you wrote it, they would quote it as justification for renaming everyone without titles and that would return everything to chaos. So I have amended it to say in effect only if none of the rules below apply do you in the issue of royal names and titles go by most common form of name.

Secondly, the line on saints was wrong. Removing the word 'saint' is unworkable most of the time, because most saints are utterly unrecognisable without it. You can't write Saint Patrick as anything but Saint Patrick. Ditto with Saint George, etc etc. Hence Saint is widely used. It was simply that the naming conventions had not been amended to incorporate what was discovered over time to be the only workable and practical solution. So I amended the line to say in effect don't use saint unless the person is unrecognisable without it. If they are, use it.

I've just remembered that there is also an agreement to use St. rather than Saint for buildings named that way. (I've already had a frustating row with someone who keeps changing the agreed names of cathedrals by spelling out Saint.) I've better put in a line spelling that out, to avoid conclusion. FearÉIREANN 18:42 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Patriarchs

Patriarch conventions

Given the paragraphs under Clerical Names, no reference was made to the patriarchs of constantinople, let alone other patriarchs in Near East and Eastern Europe. For consistency and clarity, I proposed 2 systems:

1)all patriarchs shall be named [[Patriarch (title) (ordinal) of (name of the place)]] even if that person has a more common nomenclature. [[John Chrysostom]] would become [[Patriarch John I of Constantinople]]

2) similar to 1), but drop the Patriarch from the title, i.e. [[John Chrysostom]] would become [[John I of Constantinople]]

kt2

Yeah 'clerical names' is an evolving concept here. Popes and cardinals were sorted through seeing the problems that arise if other alternatives were used.

I think (1) is the logical one to use. (2) would be wrong and ill-advised. The reasons are:

1. religions often use naming conventions very similar to royal naming conventions. We have to be careful to use a form that avoids confusing users as to what they are looking at. [[name {ordinal} of location]] should for clarity be restricted to royalty and to those ancient figures generally known in that form. Using a religious title would avoid causing confusion to users.
   
   
2. Given that we use pope for the head of the Roman Catholic Church, I think we show a similar tendency to use the equally appropriate title for Orthodox leaders. So I think Patriarch should be used.

As to John Chrysostom, I would argue that we should use redirects. Given that google users are far more likely to use that form of name rather than Patriarch John I of Constantinople, and that the JC form is universally recognisable throughout christendom whereas his patriarch's title would be recognisable to simply one branch of christianity, we should put the main text as John Chrysostom and a redirect at [[Patriarch John I of Constantinople]] to it. That way he would show up in the list of patriarchs but would be found in the name most people would know him as.

FearÉIREANN 20:01 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Largely agree with jtd, I think. "John I of Constantinople" might introduce confusion with Emperor John I Tzimisces, for instance. And "John Chrysostom" is so universally recognized that it should be the main article, and the other the redirect. john 20:12 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think it is necessary to work out a standard format for referring to patriarchs. I think it is strongly advisable that as with monarchs and popes, we recognise that patriarchs do not exist as a separate existence but together, each patriarch affected by their predecessors' actions or inactions. Patriarchs were all in the process of being moved by some users to the form [[Patriarch {name} {ordinal} of {location}]],with common name as the redirect page and patriarch title as main page. Another user has now gone and changed them all backwards, making patriarch the redirect and common name the main one.

That in my view is utterly wrong. The patriarchs of Constantinople should be kept as a block rather than named separately. That runs against everything we have achieved in sorting out the royal naming, the papal naming, the use of titles, etc. The basic rule that has been followed has been highest form of title, keeping those with similar titles in an easy to follow chain. Hence Mary Queen of Scots is at Mary I of Scotland (to keep her in the chain of Scottish monarchs) but redirects are used to get the commonly known but unique reference cleanly and understandably into the list. It would be absurd for use to put Mary I at Mary Queen of Scots without causing confusion to readers who mightn't understand why she is called that while James VI is not King of Scots, etc. Using common name is fine when someone has a simple name. But monarchs, popes, cardinals patriarchs do not have a simple name. They have a personal name and an office name. Some are known by the former. Many by the latter. It is better for the user if the office name is kept as the main page. That way, if as in the case of Mary, Queen of Scots, a Patriarch of Constantinople, a pope they know the personal name they will be directed to the person as part of the chain, and so link Mary with other Scottish monarchs, link a father of the Church with the post of Patriarch of Constantinople, link a de Medici with the papacy. FearÉIREANN 08:10 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I generally agree with Jt except for commonly known personal names of patriarchs. Another user stated that it would be better to keep the common name as the main page, as in the case of John Chrysostom, while other names including the office name (Patriarch John I of Constantinople) relegated to redirects. Other users have been following this rule and suddenly everything has changed to making the office name the main page. Ever-changing standard is difficult to be followed. Secondly simplicity of a clerical personal name often depends on the perspective of the readers. A religious studies expert would easily tell that John Chrysostom is the same as Patriarch John I of Constantinople whereas a novice would not tell. IMO if we are setting standards for main page title of patriarch articles, all titles should be sticking to one single standard, i.e. Patriarch John I of Constantinople, instead of having Patriarch Gennadius I of Constantinople for one patriarch and Gregory Nazianzus for another. kt2 01:05 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The reason why is was changed was the same reason as Mary, Queen of Scots and Charles Windsor were abandoned. They threw up more problems than they solved. One user, fed up of the tangled mess that made people look like individuals when they were part of a chain of office-holders, after discussing it with people began trying out the format of patriarch name as main page, personal name as redirect. (They aren't going to be too happy when they come back that all the work they did, having got full agreement from everyone asked, has now been undone again!.) What they did matches the highest office principle generally followed with popes and monarchs and keeps everything together, allowing someone in the main title to see someone as part of a chain of history of an office, not an isolated individual. I think the principle of keeping office holders together in a recognisable group, all with an identical naming format, is the logical solution, otherwise they get lost and simply look like individuals when their office had a major impact on who they were. So I would argue strongly for the chain naming that we apply to religious and secular holders of continuous offices where the holder changes their name to a reign name on selection/election/inheritance/appointment.

The absolute nightmare would be a repeat of what happened with Japanese emperors, where they were renamed almost on a weekly basis to Japanese format, english format, international reign name format, Japanese era name, reign name again, era name again, etc etc. (Having stopped what he was doing and adopted an international standard because his format proved unworkable, Taku's changes have now been changed again by another Japanese user back to the format that proved unusable the first, second and third time tried.) So we need to make one final clear decision on patriarchs and it makes sense to apply the same rules as in similar offices, rather than a dis-organised naming system relying simply on personal name. FearÉIREANN 01:48 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have always preached a unified chain format of patriarchs, i.e. [[Patriarch {name} {ordinal} of {location}]] or Patriarch John I of Constantinople instead of John Chrysostom, as seen from my previous post here a while ago. However another user came up with a "brillant" (and frustrating IMO) idea that JC (the common name) should be the main page and telling other people "should be" following that way. Other users employed such a convention, and suddenly the same user, who sugguested the "common name as title" convention, reverted to the idea of the chain format. If that user intended to put forward "the chain format" convention, why would that user state that wikipedian should put the main article as JC at the first place. On the other hand, the activity of "Another user has now gone and changed them all backwards, making patriarch the redirect and common name the main one." took place after such "common name as title" statement was drawn. IMO the user who made all those "backward" changes was simply following the ""common name as title" convention stated here a while ago and unfortunately took the blame of somebody's mistake. Anyhow, I ALWAYS and STRONGLY argue for the article title in the chain format, which is [[Patriarch {name} {ordinal} of {location}]]. kt2 02:35 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

-) NP. We were at cross-purposes. When I get some time (if I get some time :-( ) I'll leave a message on some people's talk pages and we'll see if we can kill of this ludicrous common name nonsense one and for all here and get agreement on a rock solid naming convention on patriarchs. Maybe you can pass the word around to the people who tend to debate things on this page. They might want to return for the latest chapter in royal and clerical naming debate. lol FearÉIREANN 03:20 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If I get some time ( :| ), I'll help spread the word around. By the way, I didn't get your share of fun (lol?) on this issue. kt2 04:21 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wait, what's wrong with John Chrysostom? Seems to me that if he's better known for his writings as "John Chrysostom" than for his patriarchin' as "John I of Constantinople" (which he surely is), he should be listed as the former. And even people who know about his patriarchin' would usually call him John Chrysostom. In the list page, he can be referred to by both names, as in his own page, but I can't imagine that anybody anywhere is going to try to look up "Patriarch John I of Constantinople." To be quite honest, I tend to think that all articles ought to be known by the name by which someone is best known. Particularly if it's a unique and correct name. Would we really rather have "Charles II of Western Francia" rather than "Charles the Bald"? Because that would seem to be the ultimate logic of the position being advocated here. I mean, "Charles Windsor" is obviously silly - he's never been known as Charles Windsor to anybody. Is "Mary Queen of Scots" comparable? During her life, she would have been called either that or "Mary Stuart/Stewart", I suspect. I doubt she was ever called "Mary I of Scotland". Nor is she very frequently called "Mary I of Scotland" at present. Not that I necessarily object to the current placement, but I'm not fully comfortable with the idea that standardization ought to trump recognizability. john 04:39 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

JT - you have got to be kidding! Nobody and I mean nobody calls John Chrysostom John I of Constantinople (not to mention Patriarch John I of Constantinople). Do a Google search and the only case of that very odd usage is this talk page! And this convention is only supposed to apply to modern states anyway. I can tolerate Napoleon I of France because that title is actually used (very seldom though) but Patriarch John I of Constantinople is a monstrosity that is used nowhere. --mav

Actually yes they do. (And your comment that you "can tolerate Napoleon I of France because that title is actually used (very seldom though)" shows that you don't work in the history sphere. It is widely used!!! :-) ) The point is quite simple. Anyone holding a post like patriarch, pope, monarch or whatever is directly impacted upon in their behaviour and view of life. As historians regularly say (and I have heard it over and over and over at conferences) the biggest problem historians face is that people see historic figures in isolation from their time period, contemporary elite, power structure and vision of life. That is understandable in that much of that information has been lost. Or we only remember bits of the chain; we know who Mary Queen of Scots was but who remembers who was before her? Who can name the monarch before Henry IV of France, the pope before Pope Pius IX? Yet Gregory XVI's policies directly shaped Pius IX's reign, just as Pius shaped Leo XIII, etc etc. And not just because the two men lived overlapping lives but because they held the same office, worked through the same power-structure, etc.

We may well know him as John Chrysostom or John of Antioch (his actual name!) but those two words and two names did not shape what he did one iota. But the fact that he was a bishop shaped who he was and what he could and could not do immeasurably. The fact that he was bishop in and of Constantinople is crucial. It links him to the emperors, indicates much about his relationship between the popes in Rome and other patriarchs, and places him at the centre of the powerplay that dominated relationships between west and east. If you do understand how central his patriarchial post was, and his link to Constantinople you cannot understand who he was, what he did, what he believed, etc. And if you do not understand the post you will not understand that he was part of a chain, how Nestorius impacted on him, how he created quite litrerally a chain reaction which impacted on a patriarch 7 or 8 people further down the chain. You cannot do that if you treat each bit of the chain of patriarchs as a separate entity in its title. No-one is talking about dropping the page mentioning John Chrystosom but it beggars belief that it could seriously be suggested that someone whose impact was directly shaped by holding a particular office as one of a chain of people to hold that office, shouldn't be renamed as such, but should be at a "name" that isn't even his own name! It makes perfect sense to redirect the what is in effect his common nickname to his formal church name, where he fits into a list of other people who held the post in question.

As to this idea that formal naming only applies to modern states; there are three reasons for that:

1. Most older states had unclear boundaries and identities that changed so often they were not compatible with a modern power structure and its nomenclature;

2. Most ancient monarchies did not use ordinals for their monarchs;

3. Ancient monarchies are long gone and confined to history.

None of these apply here. The post of Bishop/Patriarch of Constantinople has a clear definition and a clear list of holders. It lacks the ambiguity which is the principal reason for adopting a different system for nomenclature for pre-modern, mediæval and pre-mediæval political entities. Bishops and patriarchs used clear unambiguous ordinals. And the Patriarchy exists today as it did a millennium ago and for many centuries before that. At what point in the past do you intend telling the millions of followers of Orthodox christianity that they stop being patriarch on wiki and revert to personal name? Do you expect them to be happy that you treat their patriarchs in a manner less respectful of their title than you do popes, Archbishops of Canterbury, etc by removing their religious title? There aren't people from Western Francia here to worry or take offence at how we call their king, any more than there are people from Án Mhidhe to worry about how we call an Árd Rí. But the Orthodox Church of Patriarch John still exists today, still has millions of adherents and still has a Patriarch. I'd love to hear how exactly you propose Mav to cut off the 'patriarch' title after a set point. Does that mean the coptics can't call the coptic popes pope after that date too, to be fair? And what about Roman Catholic popes? 'Sorry, guys, you lose your titles before AD 500.' Or is it just patriarchs? Should we revert the Irish-conceived Paschal II to Rainerius of Bieda? (Or even Rianerius of Dublin, as he was supposedly conceived here.) And in the interest of religious equality, if the article on the Bishop of Constantinople can't be referred to by title but by name, does that mean that the Bishops of Rome during his reign, Pope Anastasius I and Pope Innocent I, should have their papal pages turned into redirects and their main pages moved to their personal names? :-)

It makes no sense historically, no sense religiously, no sense organisationally and no sense encyclopædically to put someone in under a name that is potentially offensive to people in the various orthodox churches (by treating him differently to other equivalent religions), and that offers no context and no information other than a name that is not even a name, when a simple redirect can put readers onto a page whose very title gives them the key facts - the what, where questions, that he was patriarch of Constantinople. Putting that in contextualises him as someone who cannot be understood in isolation and did not operate in isolation but existed, was shaped and operated via a specific religious title, one of the most important in Christendom. That can only be achieved by using the Patriarchial title on the main page that everyone gets to, not as a redirect that would largely be used by Orthodox readers who already know his links to the title of Patriarch and to Constantinople, because it is their church. wikipeace. FearÉIREANN 07:29 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Actually yes they do." Oh? Who? They are not on the Internet or any encyclopedia I've searched. It makes no sense to use a term that nobody else does (no matter how "logical"). Wikipedia is not a place to propose such changes in nomenclature. --mav 07:37 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I completely agree with mav here. The purpose of an article title is to be a convenient reference to the person whom the article is about. It is not to, in itself, relay information. Certainly, the fact that John Chrysostom was Patriarch of Constantinople is an important. It should be highlighted in the article about him. And he should be mentioned, listed, and linked to in articles about the patriarchate. But, to quote Emerson, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, and I think this is a clear instance of a foolish consistency. The man is known in the English-speaking world as John Chrysostom. Note that on google, a search for "Patriarch John" +Chrysostom finds almost all of the references being to other patriarchs named John who happen to have some connection to Chrysostom. Again, I think my main thought here is that there seems to be some dispute over what the purpose of article titles is. Is that purpose to be a convenient label, or is the article title itself to serve a didactic purpose? That I can recall, I do not believe it is supposed to be the latter, but perhaps someone can correct me. As for the possibility that "John Chrysostom" might offend Orthodox Christians, well, perhaps we ought to let any Orthodox believers out there provide their own opinion about it, rather than trying to argue about whether or not they would be offended. john 21:59 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

kt2 asked for my input on the titlage of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, so I thought I'd throw in my two cents:

• Even though it appears to have been thoroughly hashed out (& perhaps settled before i came to the scene), my first choice for any entry is the most commonly known name -- well, the most commonly known english form of the name. I base this on my approach to naming, which is to simply disambiguate. After all, the names John Chrysostom, Nestorius and Ignatius of Antioch are unique; it only lengthens the namespace if we insist on names like Patriarch Ignatius I of Antioch.
• When there is a possibility of ambiguity, fall back on kt2's susggestion of [[Patriarch (title) (ordinal) of (name of the place)]], dropping the (ordinal) unless necessary.

Having said that, I see a couple of further issues with the titles & names of the various patriarchs:

• The language form of the name: Frankly, I prefer the Latin forms over the Greek, over the Syriac/Coptic/local language format, when it is clear one can make a preference. By this, for a 3rd century personage I'd rather see Justus over Ioustos, but from the 6th century on, I think the local language is more appropriate than either Greek or Latin.
• The same person with different titulature: there are several examples of the same person being translated to different offices -- usually from the Patriarchate of Antioch or Alexandria to Constantinople. For this reason, I suggest that it makes more sense to refer to the person by his most familiar name.
• The actual title: I don't know who made this change to the List of Patriarchs of Constantinople, but it does make sense to talk of first bishops, then archbishops, then (with the Council of Chalcedon Patriarchs. The only reason I haven't made similar changes to the lists for Antioch, Jerusalem & Alexandria is simple laziness.

Having typed all of that, what I'm more concerned with is consistency across the various lists: I see no point in making changes to, say, the list of Jacobite Patriarchs of Antioch, only to find afterwards I need to change them all again to conform with how the list of Patriarchs of Constantinople is now being organized. Beyond a few indivduals where I feel common sense dictates one style, I have no vested interest in any one approach; I just want to be convinced that the consensus will work. -- llywrch 01:40, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It seems to me that the issue of "convenience" is a non-issue, so long as a redirect exists from the "most commonly used" name to the actual entry. One potential problem with the "most commonly used" standard is that it is (or can be) quite subjective, and will perhaps be different for different groups. As far as I'm concerned, if I wanted to find info on John Chrystosom, I'd simply look for Chrystosom. I'm not even sure I'd remember the John part. So we can have a redirect (or a disambig) at Chrysostom, and I get exactly what I want. I would not expect the actual page entry to be only Chrysostom. I expect a more formal title. But I find what I want -- that's what I care about.

The main reason for having a standard here is to avoid having this same discussion endlessly. You pick a standard that is clear, unambiguous, and not subjective. Then you use redirects to your heart's content to make things "convenient". This is not foolish consistency, but practical consistency.

-Anthropos 05:25, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Monarchical Titles (Again)

It is probably not the first time it has come up, but I disagree with rule 2 for the Monarchical Titles. In some countries, it is convention to give an ordinal to all monarchs, even when there has only been one holder of that name. Examples include Belgium and Spain. I would propose to include ordinals when writing about monarchs of those countries. Erwin 16:45, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That is not the international usage and as an international sourcebook we follow internationally recognised names, not ones exclusive to a country. Internationally King Baudouin was never referred to as King Baudouin I, King Juan Carlos is never referred to as Juan Carlos I, Paul of Greece is never referred to as Paul I, Queen Victoria is never referred to as Victoria I. Wiki is simply following the standard international naming system and that is the overwhelmingly agreed policy. FearÉIREANN 19:23, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think there is an "international" usage at all, just a British one. And a British usage should, IMHO, only be applied to British monarchs, and a Dutch to Dutch monarchs, etc... I think one should respect the national tradition, whatever language one speaks. Example, even though Baudouin would be called "the first" in Belgian history books, but Queen Victoria would never be called "Victoria I" - not even in Belgian school books. Incidentally, when the Belgian government still had a full English version, he was called Baudouin "the first" even in English. Erwin 19:49, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

1. There is a standard english language methodology that covers everything from the use or non-use of ordinals to the use of maiden name/title when referring to deceased consorts to the listing of honours. It is not a British standard but a worldwide english usage standard.

2. Different variations for usage was tried and proved unworkable. If you leave an ordinal in Juan Carlos, users then think that is the universal method and apply an ordinal to Queen Victoria, King Paul, etc. If you take some ordinals out, then users who don't know why then take ordinals out of Baudouin, Juan Carlos, etc. When that 'do each country differently' approach was tried it proved disastrous, turning pages all over into edit wars. The policy of simply not using ordinals except as disambigulation references where than more than one monarch had the same name, was adopted based on how monarchs are described by historians and has proved to be the only effective way to avoid endless edit wars erupting over ordinals. That is why it is now the convention followed universally by everyone on wiki for all western monarchies. Eastern monarchies operate under different naming traditions and have their own agreed conventions. FearÉIREANN 21:14, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

1. What determines that this is the standard english language methodology? Sure, it is perhaps more common to refer to the king of Spain and Juan Carlos than as Juan Carlos I - Google gives 2 180 hits for 'Juan Carlos of Spain' and 1 330 for "Juan Carlos I of Spain". But Google also gives 49 700 hits for "Diana Princess of Wales" and 217 000 (4xas much) for "Princess Diana". So common usage isn't necessarily a reference.

2. "If you leave an ordinal in Juan Carlos, users then think that is the universal method and apply an ordinal to Queen Victoria, King Paul, etc." What's the difference with the current situation - users think that it is the universal method and don't apply ordinals to King Baudouin I and King Juan Carlos I? Isn't it more simple - and more correct in respect to the national traditions - to give the readers a list of countries for which they should apply ordinals to monarchs (Belgium, Spain, France, Italy,...) and a list of countries for which they shouldn't (Britain, Netherlands, Luxembourg,...)?

3. Then why should we only apply the "standard English language methodology" for the use of ordinals? For example, the "standard English language methodology" is that a woman named X who marries a prince named Y is called Princess Y and not Princess X - for example Marie-Christine Freiin von Reibnitz, who married Prince Michael of Kent is known as Princess Michael of Kent and not as Princess Marie-Christine of Kent. But this rule conflict with the traditions in other monarchies, such as Denmark or the Netherlands. For example, Laurentien Brinkhorst who married Prince Constantijn of the Netherlands is known as Princess Laurentien of the Netherlands and not as Princess Constantijn of the Netherlands. Should we write articles about "Princess Constantijn of the Netherlands" because this is the "standard English language methodology", even though she is known as "Princess Laurentien of the Netherlands" according to her national traditions? If not, why not? What's the difference between applying the "standard English language methodology" for ordinals and applying "standard English language methodology" for the names of married women?

4. "That is why it is now the convention followed universally by everyone on wiki for all western monarchies. Eastern monarchies operate under different naming traditions and have their own agreed conventions." So, basically, you apply different rules for Eastern monarchies because they operate under different traditions, but you don't apply different rules for some western monarchies despite the fact that they operate under different traditions? Have a nice day, BTW Erwin 08:44, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That is a simplistic and unworkable analysis. 100% accuracy is 100% impossible in wiki, as everyone who has spent months trying to sort out royal naming on wiki has found to their cost. Before a gang of us came along, wiki had the Prince of Wales in as [[Charles Windsor]], the Princess Royal in as [[Anne Windsor]], the former King of Greece in as [[Constantine Gluckberg]], etc etc.. There are still new users who try to reuse such rubbish. The task we faced was to try to create conventions that could be followed generally. Attempts at 100% accuracy in all cases produced edit wars all over the place. In an effort to sort out the chaos, experts (including Royal palaces in Britain, the Netherlands and Spain) were contacted by me and by some others. When it came to ordinals, the only workable format was found was not to use ordinals when only one monarch had had that name. That solution was discussed with experts who found it logical and acceptable, including royal press offices who were approached.

That is why is it now the convention used everywhere for western monarchs. From your comments it seems to don't understand the complexity of working on an encyclopædia where you have americans who think it is POV to use anything other that Charles Windsor, and Europeans who want to use the full style, title and honours in a title. After some experience of wiki you'll realise just how difficulty keeping everyone happy is. The naming coventions are the only workable compromise and were thrown up after months of effort, and involved edit wars with the Charles Windor, Baudouin Saxe-Coberg nuts whose simplistic, niave and almost invariably wrong namings drove those of us trying to get things as accurate as possible to the bring of leaving wiki. That is why the no ordinal usage for single monarchs is now the rule everyone has to follow. FearÉIREANN 13:37, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I personally think I do understand the complexity of working on an encyclopædia, and I do not mean to disdain the merits of your courageous struggle against Charles Windsor nuts (no sarcasm intended). Neither do I wish to challenge the necessity of conventions - I simply do not see why only this conventions would be workable. It is after all as arbitrary as any other convention (one could even argue that it is less workable than the convention to assign an ordinal to every monarch, because, suppose that some weird epidemic hits the British RF and some distant relative named Victoria becomes monarch, you would need to change every single page which refers to Queen Victoria).
But my point was that the convention, as it now is, can lead to misinterpretations. Suppose I wanted to know if Belgian monarchs are always referred to with an ordinal or not, and I did not know of the existance of the wiki naming conventions, I might look up 'Baudouin' on Wikipedia, I would see that he wasn't assigned an ordinal, and I would - wrongfully - conclude that Belgium applied the British tradition of not assigning ordinals to monarchs who are the only of their name. Or, suppose I did know about the Wikipedia naming conventions, I would not look it up because I would know that Wikipedia is an unreliable source. Both cases must sound horrible to anyone who cares about Wikipedia and who describes himself as someone who wants to get things as accurate as possible.
That is why a "depends on what the national tradition is" convention would, IMHO, be an improvement for Wikipedia.
But it is too hot here that to get into an endless and tiresome discussion about this. Therefore, I propose a compromise: we keep the convention as it now is (despite the fact that I continue to disagree with it), but I will make an article explaining the national traditions. This article (which would be called 'Use of ordinals by monarchs', or something similar) would begin with explaining that it is purely for the purpose of information and that, when writing an article, one should always respect the Wiki naming conventions. I think this would please us both - it would please me because it would make wikipedia more reliable, and it would please you because it might stop some of those annoying brats like me from challenging your conventions for the n'th time.
I will start writing it as soon as I know that you agree with this compromise.Erwin 16:21, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think it is an excellent idea. Sorry if I sounded gruff; It has been a constant battle to stop the 'Charles Windsor' nuts on the one hand, and the [[Her Royal and Imperial Highness, Princess Alba Victoria, Duchess of Alba, Countess of Leeds, Princess of Denmark and Greece, ]] (this is a mytical person, BTW, or at least I hope it is!!!) people on the other. I have a lot more sympathy for the latter, very little for the Windsor nuts! One of the major problems we have had is those striving for absolute accuracy is that they often doing realise the knock-on effects of their decision. One very genuine user renamed all the Japanese emperors in literal Japanese style, producing vast numbers of pages that were unintelligible to english speakers, breaking hundreds of links and causing chaos that took a month to fix and endless edit wars. (He finally realised the mess and undid it, only to find another Japanese user came on and did the exact same again!). When Baudouin became Baudouin I, someone then changed Victoria to Victoria I. When she was put back as Victoria, someone then changed Baudouin I back to Baudouin. And so the saga went on. So it was checked with Laeken and Buckingham Palace and Baudouin could be written without the ordinals (indeed that is regular practice except in their native countries) where Victoria, though proclaimed as Victoria I, is never ever written that way. That is why it is bit of a delicate topic. FearÉIREANN 18:03, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just created Use of ordinals by monarchs. No, I believe there is no such person as [[Her Royal and Imperial Highness, Princess Alba Victoria, Duchess of Alba, Countess of Leeds, Princess of Denmark and Greece, ]] - it's even worse, there's a person who the most generous genealogists call [[Her Excellency, Maria del Rosario Cayetana Fitzjames-Stuart y de Silva, Duchess of Alba de Tormes, Berwick, Montoro, Lirio, Jerica, Arjona, Hijar, Aliaga and Huescar, Duchess and Countess of Olivares, Marchioness of San Vincente del Barco, La Carpio, Coria, Eliche, La Mota, San Leonado, Sarria, Villanueva del Rio, Tarazona, Villanueva de Fresna, Barcarotta, La Algaba, Osera, Moya and Almenera, Countess of Lemos, Lérin, Siruela, Monterrey, Osorno, Miranda del Castanar, Palma del Pio, Aranda, Salvatierra, Andrade, Ayula, Villalba, San Esteban de Gormaz, Fuentiduena, Cassarubios del Monte, Galve, Santa Cruz de la Serria and Ribadeo, Viscountess of Calzadal, Grandee of Spain and a couple of other titles]] . I can imagine that such an entry wouldn't be very convenient for most wikipedians.

---

I've been looking around for an answer to this, but the closest I can find is:

1. Roman Emperors don't need the "of the Roman Empire" nor would Pericles be "of Athens" ? their names already indicate where they're from. The first line of the article can say when (and which empire) they ruled. Otherwise, we get stuck with Roman Emperor, Western R. E., Eastern R. E., Byzantine E., and (under the Carolingians) Roman Emperor (again).

That's fine for the Roman Emperors, but the Byzantine Emperors are kind of messily named. Some of them have "of the Byzantine Empire" or "of Byzantium" (the latter being especially odd), some of them have "Emperor XXX" (or Empress), and some of them have their family names as well. In this case, would the most common English name be the most common name used by Byzantinists? Most of these emperors don't come in normal English conversation :) Personally, I would refer to a lot of them by their nicknames or their family names, so "Alexius I Comnenus" rather than just Alexius I, or "Constantine Monomachus" (or Con. IX Monomachus) rather than just Constantine IX.

So, I'm not exactly sure what should be done about the naming of their articles, but something definitely needs to be done, as there is very little in the way of a standard for them at the moment. Any suggestions? Adam Bishop 20:39, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Naming conventions

I'm not sure if if the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) page is checked often (apparently it isn't), so I thought I'd post this here as well...I've been looking around for an answer to this, but the closest I can find is:

1. Roman Emperors don't need the "of the Roman Empire" nor would Pericles be "of Athens" ? their names already indicate where they're from. The first line of the article can say when (and which empire) they ruled. Otherwise, we get stuck with Roman Emperor, Western R. E., Eastern R. E., Byzantine E., and (under the Carolingians) Roman Emperor (again).

That's fine for the Roman Emperors, but the Byzantine Emperors are kind of messily named. Some of them have "of the Byzantine Empire" or "of Byzantium" (the latter being especially odd), some of them have "Emperor XXX" (or Empress), and some of them have their family names as well. In this case, would the most common English name be the most common name used by Byzantinists? Most of these emperors don't come in normal English conversation :) Personally, I would refer to a lot of them by their nicknames or their family names, so "Alexius I Comnenus" rather than just Alexius I, or "Constantine Monomachus" (or Con. IX Monomachus) rather than just Constantine IX.

So, I'm not exactly sure what should be done about the naming of their articles, but something definitely needs to be done, as there is very little in the way of a standard for them at the moment. Any suggestions? Adam Bishop 22:21, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Heh, Byzantine naming for Byzantines seems entirely appropriate! It has been worked over by various people in the past - talk pages and history might tell you some of the players. They're halfway between European royalty, for which "of X" is the accepted standard, and Romans, which don't do it, but lots of the names are have high ambiguity, so review all of them before starting to tinker and then finding out the status quo was that way for a reason. :-) Stan 00:06, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

A lot of them wouldn't be ambiguous with any other world leader, of course...unless someone writes about the emperors of Trebizond, but I fixed those links so they will say "X of Trebizond." So I suppose "Alexius I", etc, is fine according to naming conventions, it just feels like they should all have "X, Byzantine Emperor" or something, if some of them do. Adam Bishop 14:59, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/monarchical titles is in need of input, I believe. --Jiang 06:29, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Suggested categorisation of titles

At the beginning of articles

Category One - Sir, Lord, etc. - These are essential in the first paragraph. The exception is where the individual concerned chooses not to use the title, where they can be mentioned elsewhere. Category one titles should be in bold along with the rest of the name, e.g. Sir Richard Branson. Peerage titles other than the highest held should not be in bold.

Category Two - The Rev., The Right Hon., etc. - These are not essential, but recommended if they are for life, and if included should not be in bold, e.g. The Reverend Ian Paisley

Category Three - His Royal Highness, His Grace, etc. - Should only be used, if desired, for living persons. Should be spelled out (not e.g. HRH except in lists), and not in bold, e.g. His Royal Highness Prince William of Wales

Andrew Yong 13:18, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Why should royal highness only be used for living persons? It is useful for dead persons as well, isn't it? john 05:45, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I was starting from the basis that while "Elizabeth II, Queen of ..." is preferable to "Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of...", people will naturally call the reigning monarch "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II": on the other hand no-one would ever call a historical figure such as Henry VIII "His Highness King Henry VIII". I guess the same applies to some extent to all titles and styles: Baroness Thatcher will be referred as such while she lives, but after that Mrs Thatcher will surely replace it as the most common usage.

Also I felt that some titles in the category such as His Grace, His Lordship, etc. are only really used in speech, e.g. the addition of "His Grace" to "The Most Reverend and Right Hon. Dr Cosmo Gordon Lang" would be totally contrary to usage. Perhaps it is not entirely correct to lump The Hon., The Rev. etc. together on the one side and His Majesty, His Grace, etc. on the other, but at the end of the day it is an editorial decision - there is really no right or wrong way as far as this topic is concerned - I am just trying to suggest why the use of some titles/styles is more or less essential/acceptable than others and to bring about some consistency: if "The Right Reverend" is used, so should "the Right Honourable", but "The Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson" stands well enough without "Her Excellency" or postnominals. Andrew Yong 21:04, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...maybe not for Thatcher. Historically, at least, peers are generally known by their peerage title, at least formally, after their deaths. But, who knows, at this point? I would agree that "His Grace" is silly to add. And something for Henry VIII, when the styles were not very clear, in any event, would also be silly. But HRH The Duke of Connaught, for instance? HRH Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll? As opposed to her daughter, HH Princess Alexandra of Fife? I think the royal styles have general applicability. john 21:53, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK, I concede the royals point where it is informative. But in the absence of HRH etc. I much prefer "John, Duke of X" to "His Grace John, Duke of X" or even "The Most Noble John, Duke of X" as it conveys no additional information. Andrew Yong 17:47, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, "his grace" conveys nothing of interest. I'd also say that there's no need for "right honourable" for barons, viscounts, and earls, and no need for "most honourable" for marquesses, since that information is already conveyed by the title. But I think all royal styles are worth having, with the possible exception of majesty for Kings and queens. john 18:47, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Who is a monarch?

A grand duke is a kind of monarch, right? Existing articles for grand dukes and duchesses seem split on article titling. Presumably princes like Rainier III of Monaco are agreed to get the monarchical treatment, what about dukes and smaller nobility that are/were absolute rulers of their domains? Stan 18:16, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Any sovereign ruler should count as a monarch. In general a Duke like, say, the duke of Brunswick, was considered higher (and had a higher style) than a sovereign prince like those of Monaco or Liechtenstein. As far as Grand Dukes, most are monarchs (the Grand duke of Luxembourg, the Grand duke of Hesse and the Rhine, and so forth). Members of the Russian Imperial house, though, obviously are not. john 19:44, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Rt. Hon.

Articles on Canadian prime ministers and governors (e.g. Paul Martin, Jr.) start with "The Right Honorable so-and-so is the this-and-that of Canada". I think that sounds weird - like starting an article for every monarch with "His/Her majesty so-and-so was the king of this-and-that". Any thoughts? Zocky 05:36, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, you're the guy who removed the address from Adrienne Clarkson. Is there a reason why you did not remove the address from Queen Elizabeth II? --Menchi (Talk)â 05:40, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

So, should Charlemagne start with "His majesty, Charlemagne was..."?

How about starting Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor with "His majesty Francis the First, by the grace of God Emperor of Austria; King of Jerusalem, Hungary, Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia, and Lodomiria; Archduke of Austria; Duke of Lorraine, Salzburg, Würzburg, Franconia, Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola ; Grand Duke of Cracow; Prince of Transylvania; Margrave of Moravia; Duke of Sandomir, Masovia, Lublin, Upper and Lower Silesia, Auschwitz and Zator, Teschen, and Friule; Prince of Berchtesgaden and Mergentheim; Princely Count of Habsburg, Gorizia, and Gradisca and of the Tyrol; and Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and Istria was..."?

How about "His imperial majesty, Napoleon I Bokassa"?

"Her majesty", "Right Honourable" etc. are not even titles, they are forms of address, and are not part of the person's name. Zocky 05:52, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For reasons of NPOV (and also standard encyclopedic naming), "The Right Honorable" doesn't belong in the article as a form of address. It does belong in Prime Minister of Canada as a bit of information about the position and the forms of address generally applied in different situations, etc. Daniel Quinlan 05:55, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a bunch of edits. Incidentally, I also edited the few British Monarch articles that had a similar honorific only used in formal address (that are not titles). Daniel Quinlan 08:15, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

I posted a few paragraphs on this page under "Suggested categorisation of titles" (above) in November in the hope of avoiding the "all or nothing" absolutism that has characterised most discussions about the inclusion of titles. I would be grateful if anyone who disagrees with my categorisation could enter into a discussion about why they disagree with it.

As far as the style "The Right Honourable" is concerned, I suggested that it falls in the same category as styles such as "The Reverend", which while not part of the name or title of the person and thus not essential, should be included if it is for life, mainly because it carries important information about the person, and because its omission would seem to be intended to make some point. E.g., "The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was..." indicates straightaway that the subject of the article was a Christian minister. After that the subject can simply be referred to as "King" or "Dr King". Leaving it out "The Reverend" in the first instance would to me seem contentious, and even insulting.

Incidentally the use or non-use of the style "The Rt Hon" has nothing to do with NPOV. The entitlement of any person to the style is a matter of fact which can be instantly ascertained by consulting the relevant Canadian Order in Council. Andrew Yong 17:47, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Why is it Sir for some ?

Way back in June I requested that the title Sir be included in the underlining for Sir T.B. I started a new page to differentiate between other obscure Thomas Browne's but was jumped upon for altering it. I presumed this to be some egalitarian protocol to equalise all in the hall of fame. I now notice that a user named Smallweed has helpfully begun a page on a Sir James Edward Smith all underscored for clicking onto. Why is it Sir for some , but not for others? Or are arbitary editoral decisions made at the wiki? Norwikian 08:31, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As I understand it, the general policy is not to use "Sir" (or other similar titles) for any articles. As such, I think the Sir James Edward Smith article should probably be changed (and indeed, someone has already redirected it to James Edward Smith. The reason that "Sir" is avoided, I believe, is that the title generally is held by people only during a certain part of their life. As far as I know, most people who hold the title gain it during their life, rather than holding it from birth (but I could be wrong). Also, people who are "Sir" may later go on to be something higher (Lord, for example). Since titles can change, while names generally don't, it's better to stick with names. Or at least, that's my understanding - I wasn't involved. :-) -- Vardion 10:30, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You're right that arbitrary editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia, though. Any consistency is arrived at through consensus and/or through people making things consistent by pulling articles into line. Individuals contributors are inevitably going to make decisions that aren't consistent. Onebyone 11:16, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) advises against the use of Sir in the title. There was also some discussion of using the word in the article itself on the mailing list in October. See the Saints thread. Angela. 19:43, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yep, all fair logical comments and explanatory, except that in this exception case ( and don't we all as Albert Camus once remarked, consider ourselves to be an exception case) T.B. has always been referred to as Sir T.B. ever since Coleridge's day, but on the whole i agree with this egalitarian principle, so i shall drop this slight whinge , fairly satisfied with your answers, thanks Norwikian 03:09, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it has to do with egalitarianism. Holders of noble titles have their articles under that title. Personally, I tend towards the opinion that "Sir" should be used in article titles, if only because it's useful in disambiguation, and many people are known primarily with their "Sir". But that might lead to Sir Michael Jagger (which, astonishingly, somebody already created!) being insisted upon as the main page. (For British peerage titles, it might be added, the standard is rather vague. The general rule is that you use the highest title achieved. Except sometimes, when you don't, as Benjamin Disraeli, not Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, Stanley Baldwin, not Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, and so forth...life peers are never to have their peerage title used...sigh). john 08:26, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

While agreeing in general with the guidance, "never" is a singularly foolish proscription to make. Take for example the current Master of the Rolls, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers. I challenge you to find any lawyer who knows what his Christian name is. Supposing it is Tom or John (I am unable to discover it even after searching Google), it would be madness to put the article under "John Phillips". Andrew Yong 18:03, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd agree with this, but for a much larger number of life peers. While some life peers (those known well before they were made peers) are known primarily by their real names (like James Callaghan, not Lord Callaghan of Cardiff), the vast majority are known purely by their peerages. Notwithstanding the life peers who call themselves idiotic things like "Baroness Helena Kennedy" (Lady Kennedy of The Shaws) and "Baroness Valerie Amos" (Lady Amos), no one knows the first names of most life peers. If you asked most people who Charlie Falconer or James Brian Edward Hutton are, they wouldn't know, as they are almost universally known as "Lord Falconer of Thoroton" and "Lord Hutton", and yet it's the former names that their articles are under. I'd be inclined to suggest that the policy be the same as for hereditary peers - if they are known almost exclusively by their real names, use them, but the default should be the peerage title. Proteus 20:03 GMT, 17th January 2004

I believe that we ought to have Nicholas Addison Phillips, Baron Phillips of Worth Matravers, rather than Lord Philips of Worth Matravers, though the latter could most definitely be a re-direct. -- Lord Emsworth 02:01, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, although possibly Lord rather than Baron, since without the ordinal Lord is easier. Andrew Yong 12:04, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Lord" would make it look like a courtesy peerage, and would be inconsistent with current policy on hereditary peers. It would seen odd to have "John Smith, 1st Baron Smith of London" but "Fred Smith, Lord Smith of Manchester", when both are substantive peers of the same grade, the only difference in their titles being that one is inheritable.Proteus 13:05 GMT, 18th January 2004

There would be no problem having most life peers at, e.g. Charles Leslie Falconer, Baron Falconer of Thoroton with redirects at, for instance, Charlie Falconer, Charles Falconer, Charles Leslie Falconer, Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Baron Falconer of Thoroton, because, unlike with hereditary peers, there is no need for a page on the title itself if only one person has ever had it. Proteus 10:52 GMT, 18th January 2004

I think with Tony's cronies Charlie Falconer and Derry Irvine do not stretch the convention too far. However, in other cases 1) where there is a need for disambiguation, 2) where the peer is unknown by his Christian name 3) where the peerage title is not the same as the surname, 4) in all cases where the peer is Law Lord, there should be exceptions to the general rule. Andrew Yong 12:04, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree to a certain extent with Derry Irvine (although I've heard him called Lord Irvine of Lairg more often than Derry Irvine) but I've never heard Lord Falconer of Thoroton called Charlie Falconer, and I didn't even know it was his name until I saw his article here. Perhaps I read the wrong newspapers.Proteus 13:05 GMT, 18th January 2004

Lord v. Baron

There is huge problem of inconsistency with some articles entitled "John Smith, 1st Lord Smith" and others entitled "John Smith, 1st Baron Smith". Can we put something in the article recommending the latter use, at least as a main article, with a recommended link from the former? The former seems more natural, but if you are going to put in the detail of the numeral, 'Lord' is inappropriately vague. Andrew Yong 09:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"Lord" should definitely be used for Scottish Lords of Parliament, who are distinct from Scottish Barons (who are not peers). Probably Baron is better for others, but it is hardly ever used. The Baron Smith is always known as "Lord Smith", including even on formal things like letters... john 09:48, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"Lord" should be used with the ordinal in the case of Scottish peers, and without the ordinal in the case of courtesy barons. "Baron" should be used with the ordinal in the case of barons in their own right. -- Lord Emsworth 15:25, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

Listing peerage titles in the article heading

Right now, all sorts of articles, from Alfred Tennyson to Bertrand Russell to William Pitt the Elder fail to include the highest title of the individual in the article title. There is at present a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage regarding such exceptions to the convention that peers have the peerage listed in the article title. I advocate that:

• All hereditary peers have the highest associated title, listed in the article title.
• The appropriate ordinal be shown, even if the holder is the only one to have held the title, unless the title be by courtesy, or be held by a Prince, in which case the ordinal is not normally used.
• If an individual holds two peerages of the same rank, and with the same ordinal (e.g. the Earls of Cork and of Orrey), both be listed, but if the ordinals are different (e.g. the Dukes of Buccleuch and of Queensberry), then the senior title alone be listed.
• Articles on life peers and hereditary peers who have disclaimed the title continue to be entitled based on the individual's own name.

-- Lord Emsworth 01:53, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

Proposed Alternative Rule for Royal Titles

For long I've been somewhat uncomfortable with the current standard for articles on royal figures. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, for instance, is awkward. I'd propose instead a format like that used in the German Wikipedia, of Elizabeth II (United Kingdom). This would make it easier to do things like Byzantine and Holy Roman Emperors (Henry V (Holy Roman Empire) seems better than the current Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor, which is, of course, in direct contrast to the style for other rulers. Further, since almost all these articles require a [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom|Elizabeth II]] in any case, it wouldn't really lead to any greater awkwardness in writing of articles. So, I tentatively suggest this. Thoughts? john

I don't see the point. What you are talking about is making what would be a minor change that would involve redoing pages and links of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages, and probably thousands of links for all royal pages for all royalty worldwide. (Baudouin of Belgium, for example, not the most prominent of world royals, whose talk page has not been used, has 42 links! George V of the UK has around 250! So that is 300 links to be checked, many of them changed, for just 2 monarchs!!! ) Getting to this point on this structure took months of work, caused major rows on the wiki-list and proved a nightmare.

From past evidence, re-opening the royal naming would re-open rows on larger issues, such as the demands from some fanatics in the debate to call her Elizabeth II of England, or Elizabeth Windsor, or Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia . . . . Calling modern monarchs by the form <name> of <state> is the best solution, because it allows for greater accuracy IMHO. Using the state as a disambigulation form is frankly ugly. I simply don't see the point of re-opening the issue, especially as I still remember the enormous hassle and workload involved in the last change. Now there are ten times as many articles on royal issues as there were then. And remember also, many pages when things were being renamed the last time were redirected once. Double redirects regularly break down, so you aren't simply talking about renaming the pages, a feat in itself, but then changing what at this stage would be thousands of redirects, and redirects to redirects and vast number of links, all for a frankly minor and to my mind ugly change. I think we would be crazy to go down that route again. :-) FearÉIREANN 21:37, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. Thought I'd throw it out there. I abandon the suggestion. john 21:45, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hispanic names

10. People in the Hispanic world often have a double surname. The first one is received from the father, the second from the mother. However, in practice only the paternal name is used, and one should thus add them to Wikipedia under this name. In the first mentioning of the name in the article, use the full name.

Why's that? Take for example Gabriel García Márquez -- why should he be put in the Wikipedia as Gabriel García or Gabriel Márquez? I think it would be better to say here the more common form should be used with Hispanic names. -- till we *) 00:37, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"In practice only the paternal name is used" — that's not bad as a rule of thumb, but by no stretch of the imagination is it a universal rule, particularly when dad's surname is a common one (García, López, etc.). García Márquez is a good example; so is Vargas Llosa (and wikipedians should certainly appreciate this built-in system of disambiguation). NB: On occasions, what you might think is a paternal-plus-maternal combination is actually a compound paternal surname. José López Portillo is a case in point here: it'd be absolutely wrong to refer to him as José López. User:till we *) is right that the more common form should be used. –Hajor 15:33, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lost royal titles

Let's see if I got this thing. I have adopted the policy, which I understand to be consistent with these standards, of naming royalty by their most senior title, even if they eventually relinquished it or were deprived of it, and although they might be more commonly known under a different name (from where there should of course be a redirect). Hence Prince Carl, Duke of Ostrogothia, not Prince Carl Bernadotte; Prince Sigvard, Duke of Uplandia, not Count Sigvard Bernadotte af Wisborg. This once they are dead. Living persons however should probably be listed by their most common names? Certainly it must be so in the case of Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Wermelandia, as naming that article Carl Philip, Crown Prince of Sweden would use a title that he only had for a few months while infant, and (worse, of course) risk confusion for the inattentive reader as to him actually being the present Crown Prince. Agree or disagree? --Jao 01:59, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Any policy would have to allow for very special cases, and Sweden adopting a fully cognate succession must be that unique exceptions. Otherwise, I believe the highest title should be used, but when writing an article every effort should be made to use Edward VIII of the United Kingdom|The Duke of Windsor rather than Duke of Windsor and unneccessarily redirect garryq 01:08, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Russian royalty

And yet another question from me. What article title should go for Russian Grand Dukes and Grand Duchesses? Here there are actually three issues: inclusion/exlusion of patronymic; transcription; and word order. I have used Anna Petrowna, Grand Duchess of Russia and Maria Pawlowna, Grand Duchess of Russia (in the articles of their husbands, Charles Frederick of Holstein-Gottorp and Prince Wilhelm, Duke of Sudermannia respectively). Feel free to change if there is a better way to do this. -- Jao 20:46, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The formulation you use implies a unique title, I think. I'd prefer Grand Duchess Anna Petrovna of Russia (also, I think the "v" would be better...using the "w" is an archaic Germanism, isn't it?) john 20:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your line seems sound, so I'm changing into it. -- Jao 12:55, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

German Noble Titles

I don't think there has been any convention on how to deal with German noble titles. Most articles seem to avoid the title entirely. Thus Otto von Bismarck, not mentioning his princely titles at all. alternate ways of doing it would be to use the German version of the title (Otto Fürst von Bismarck(-Schönhausen)) or the English version (Prince Otto von Bismarck(-Schönhausen). In present day Germany, the title is considered part of a name, which would suggest the second option as the best. But the main thing is just to set up an official way of doing things, so we all know how to name articles. john 23:39, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't that fact about present day Germany rather be quite a strong hint that the first way is better? If a person today is, say "Heinrich Graf zu Ortenburg", this means his first name is Heinrich, and his surname is Graf zu Ortenburg, and certainly we don't translate surnames on Wikipedia? Of course it might be argued that there is still a strong notion in Germany that these persons actually are princes and counts - not being German myself, I can't really tell. If so, it might be appropriate to use that style on Wikipedia as well.

I just recalled using the second way myself. In Swedish Royal Family, this Heinrich's mother-in-law is presented as Princess of Hohenzollern - though formally of course it's just that her name is, I presume, "Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollern" (or Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen?). Perhaps this should be changed. -- Jao 08:51, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As for Mr. Otto, he died before 1918, so he wasn't affected by any of this. The correct style for him would thus probably be Prince Otto of Bismarck-Schönhausen (note of, not von). - But there's also the guideline about how commonly known people are most well-known in English, and I'm pretty sure this has higher priority in this case. So, IMHO, keep Otto von Bismarck, but as an exception rather than anything else. -- Jao 08:46, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See also the discussion on Freiherr (Talk) -- till we *) 23:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...I think for royalty we should stick with translating the names. But for nobility it's more questionable. Certainly Prince Otto of Bismarck is silly. the "Von" is commonly used in English for such individuals. (Prince Clemens of Metternich? Prince Bernhard of Bülow? That's all rather silly). Prince Otto von Bismarck would make sense, I think, though. As far as Heinrich Graf zu Ortenberg, I think there would certainly be a sense that he is a count, even if this is not legally recognized, but I don't think this is an argument for having an article on him at Count Heinrich of Ortenburg. But I dunno. john 23:13, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The QM

However logical the policy on royal nomenclature may seem, a policy which results in the Queen Mother being called Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is absurd, and therefore wrong. This ceased to be her name in 1923 and is recognised by no-one except historians. It's all very well to call James I's wife Anne of Denmark, when she was actually called Queen Anne, because she's no longer a well-known public figure. But the QM is, and she should be called by the name the current generation knows her as. So I have moved her to Elizabeth the Queen Mother to see what happens. Adam 11:07, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dear Adam - May I suggest you read all the previous discussion on this topic before taking such a drastic step. There has already been considerable and lengthy debate over the title of this article. Deb 14:59, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have read it. Wikpedia's most fundamental structural problem is that it privileges process over product. Here we have a wonderful process which has produced an absurd product, and no-one seems to mind. That is because Wikipedia still exists primarily for its writers rather than for its readers. I repeat: calling the QM by her maiden name 80 years after her marriage is absurd, and any policy that produces absurd outcomes is itself absurd, and should be changed. For what it's worth, my print encyclopaedias call her

• Elizabeth, Queen Mother of Great Britain (Colliers)
• Elizabeth, Queen Consort of George VI of Great Britain (Britannica)

Adam 15:13, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No doubt they do - when were they published? Seriously though, that isn't the point, and you should always try to have all the information at your disposal before you "move a popular page"; furthermore, you should at least attempt to amend all the links. In your comment above, you suggest two "correct" titles for the poor woman. The one you moved the article to was different again, and at least another half-dozen variations have been proposed, all of which are supposedly "correct". It's not as simple as you are implying. That's one reason why we went for an option that will remain valid whatever happens. Deb 15:26, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's perfectly simple. Her "correct" title for 51 years was Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. Since we quite rightly don't begin articles titles with "Her Majesty" or "Queen", that leaves us with Elizabeth the Queen Mother as the "correct" title. It is not only correct, it conforms to reality in a way that "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" does not, because she was universally known as "the Queen Mother." And what does "valid" mean in this context? It certainly doesn't mean either correct or logical. Adam 15:50, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are full of subjectivity, Adam. What does "quite rightly" mean in this context? Deb 15:56, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It means that in that instance I agree with the policy. But kindly don't change the subject: you haven't addressed the substance of my comments at all. Adam 16:08, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is no substance to address, Adam. All you have said, above, is that you don't agree with the arguments that previously held sway. You haven't given any reason why. Your comments are unworthy of a historian. Deb 20:02, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Adam - Of course using her maiden name is ridiculous, but is needed for disambiguation. Several Queens Elizabeth the Queen Mother exist, including another from England. However Royal Styles and Titles in the British Isles are so convoluted and changeable Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is a necessary evil.

As for Wikipedia privileging process over product. The process must exist for writers for any product to exist. Writers must remember that they should use those processes (disambiguation for example) which will produce a reader-friendly product.

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is NPOV. It makes discussion over which is the highest title to use. Her coronation title as Queen Elizabeth, a style later granted by letters patent, or indeed until 1947 she was Empress of India.

Do you have problems over Edward VIII? This, his highest degree, is the name used in wikipedia despite being used for only 11 months, followed by 37 years as Duke of Windsor. garryq 00:17, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Monarchical Title (Spain)

It?s been said that the Prince of Wales would prefer to be King George rather than King Charles. If we accept his right to choose adopt any name, then we must accept the right of the King of Spain to do the same. At his investiture he adopted the name ?Juan Carlos I?, and that is the name which should be used for his article.

Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden is the first King Carl, others have been Karl, and only Karl X Gustav in 1654 used a similar second given name. Lists of Swedish Kings, even that from the Royal Court?s own website do not show fifteen other Carls or Karls on the throne. Yet his wiki-article is Carl XVI Gustaf

British usage cannot be applied, because it is a reference to regnal numbers, internationally can be regnal, personal or some admixture ? the most extreme example being the Princes Heinrich of Reuss. To force a British usage means that the eldest son Heinrich LXVII Reuss zu Schleiz would not have been Heinrich V.

Because outside Britain ?regnal? numbers may be regarded as another or an adopted given name surely the wiki-naming convention must be amended to allow local custom to be followed. garryq 00:50, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's fine with me to have Juan Carlos I. Of course, this would require us to figure out whether first monarchs used an ordinal or not, which can be difficult. I don't think anyone would advocate numbering the Reusses differently, or anything. john 01:20, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As for the Swedish situation, it's a bit messy. The common practice has been to change the names of former kings into standardized forms (like Karl) - just as they are here translated into standardized forms (like Charles). To the best of my knowledge, all these Karls, at least from Karl IX on, have written their own name Carl or in latin Carolus. However, spelling should never affect ordinals. And the reason that Carl XVI Gustaf is XVI (despite being most likely the 10th Carl/Karl to have been king of Sweden) is that when the monarchs began taking on ordinals in the 16th century, they did so based on a contemporary work that was more mythological than historical. Modern historical science has, of course, not been able to change all the numbers, which only goes to show your point: the ordinal used by the monarch should be used here, too. The only exception I can think of is retroactively giving someone a I when all his successors have used ordinals (like Gustav I of Sweden).

So quite obviously Juan Carlos I of Spain. He is such. The guideline about not giving people I unless they have successors should only be applied for people who didn't use it themselves. (Sigismund I of Sweden, for example, is wrong-titled for this reason. Juan Carlos I of Spain wouldn't be.) -- Jao 14:59, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

British queen consorts vs. other European consorts

Why do we drop the "Princess" title for British Queen consorts (eg Alexandra of Denmark instead of Princess Alexandra of Denmark), while keeping them for other monarchies (eg Princess Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg and not Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg)? Why remove them at all?--Jiang 09:25, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

The policy is to always remove them, so the Spanish article seems to be misplaced. And I think the reason for removing it is that historical queen consorts are (at least in most countries) most often referred to in that way. I'm not sure it's the best way, though. Vis-à-vis putting them at their queen names, I think there was also the argument that they were less likely to need disambiguation this way. I don't actually see that it is so. An example of the opposite: I have no idea where to place the first spouse of Sigismund III of Poland-Lithuania if she is to have an article – Anna of Austria is already taken. Ah, well.. While Queen Anna of Sweden or Queen Anna of Poland-Lithuania would be quite unique. So that argument would work both ways..

Anna of Austria is a redirect. I think it should be disambiguation - there have been other notable Annas of Austria, as, for instance, Philip II's last wife. john 15:42, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Deb 17:11, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Former monarchs still alive

I would like to change No. 6 of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Monarchical_Titles. For monarchs who have formally abdicated and are still alive, or who are usually referred to using non-royal titles (e.g. Simeon Saxe-Coburg Gotha), we should go by whatever they're currently known as and revert to the royal title only after they die. We have queen consorts under sovereign titles (Sofia of Spain) instead of maiden names. Why not put people where they're commonly known as? --Jiang 08:20, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sofia isn't a good example, as that article is clearly wrongly titled. I think your suggestion, though on the surface it might seem reasonable, requires a lot of thought. Deb 17:08, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

See no. 8 of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Other_Royals. If that's wrong, then let's change it. --Jiang 21:19, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How many cases are we talking about? Besides Simeon, are there any currently alive who do not go by their royal title? Both King Michael and King Constantine use theirs - I'm not sure what former Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg goes by. (I'd have strongly objected to moving Juliana of the Netherlands to Princess Juliana of the Netherlands while she was alive.) john k 19:40, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I can't think of any cases other than Simeon. I don't see the logic behind the objection. --Jiang 21:19, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Which objection? A general objection (which I did not make), or the hypothetical objection about Juliana? john k 21:37, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'm interested to hear how that case is different from the general case of living former monarchs.--Jiang 10:48, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

French titles

Conversation moved from User talk:John Kenney and User talk:Muriel Gottrop:

Hi John! Assuming you are a sysop (not sure), can you delete Charles, Duke of Orléans for me? Its just a redirect and i want to move a page there. Thanks, Muriel G 16:03, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Muriel, in terms of the Charles, Duke of Orleans, I think that we need to figure out how article on the French nobility should be titled. My opinion is that they should be at Firstname (Surname), frenchnobletitle de Title, rather than Firstname (Surname), Englishnobletitle of Title. But I think a consistent or semi-consistent system needs to be worked out, as we have for the English nobility. So, no, I won't delete the page now, because I don't think it should be moved there. If we can come to some sort of system that says the article should be there, I'd be happy to do so. Perhaps I should open discussion at Wikipedia:Naming Conventions (Names and Titles), or whatever the page is called? My attempt to do something similar for German noble titles there, which was largely ignored, somewhat discouraged me, though. john k 18:52, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dear John, i'm afraid i have to disagree with you on this Firstname (Surname), frenchnobletitle de Title, because i rather have the English version, because this is a English Language encyclopaedia. The Duchesse du Berry and the Comte de Anjou s place are in the French wikipedia, as well as the Herzog von Sachsen und der Graf von Pfalz in the German one. When I'm back in Europe, i'll have a look in the Naming Conventions. Muriel G 13:37, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi John! I had a look on the Naming conventions. The foreign titles are not specified. I only saw instructions for english peers. They go like Henry Foot-Tootsie, 11th Baron Purpleberries. I would not like to adopt this, say, for the Duchies in continental europe. I dont like it either with foreign names like Duchesse du Berry oder Herzog von Sachsen. This, in my opinion, makes no sense in an english encyclopaedia and its a potential maintenance problem, because new articles are likely to be created according to english names. I agree with you, when you say that whatever convention, it should be consistent. Why do you prefer to use French titles here?, if i may ask. Cheers, Muriel G 13:54, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The German titles, I'd agree, are not generally used in English (at least before the abolition of noble titles when they became part of the name). However, for French noble titles, the French titles are very fequently used in English. Certainly for non-royals. We speak of the "Marquis de Lafayette," not the "Marquess of Lafayette." The "Duc de Broglie," not the "Duke of Broglie." Certainly I've never even seen "Count of Provence" and "Count of Artois" to refer to Louis XVI's brothers. Will and Ariel Durant, for instance, use the French noble titles exclusively (including for the Duc d'Orleans). Essentially, different foreign languages have different levels of familiarity in English. The Romance languages are almost certainly the most familiar, and they are also the languages where noble titles are the most similar to those in English. As such, it is common (and increasingly more common) to use the native language titles in Spanish, Italian, and especially French. Where both usages are common, I think we should stick to the native usage. I'd add that Encarta and Columbia use French titles exclusively. Britannica gives both (one in parentheses), and somewhat inconsistently, but seems to prefer the French titles. john k 17:31, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dear John, first i am glad you agree with me on the german titles!! Second, I understand your point: you want to follow the more traditional conventions, like the sources you cited (and i suspect that Duke of Orleans and Count of Artois give you the creeps, because you are not used to it). But put yourself into an (meaning not a scholar in History like you, or an interested amateur like me) ordinary user's position, while searching the internet, especially if they dont know French. The use of French titles is confusing (and in my own POV, ugly, but thats beside the matter) and might lead to unsuccessful searches. Anyway, either with the French convention or the English one, we do need a convention. Do you know the opinions of other users? Do you think this deserves a poll? Cheers, Muriel G 14:54, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As to the general issue, I think my point was that use of the French titles is standard in English, and that the Wikipedia should follow standard English practice (used by other encyclopedias), rather than babying its readers and assuming they'll be confused by the standard way that French noble titles are referred to. I mean, one might just as easily argue that English-speakers will be confused by the use of French or German given names, and that we should translate these into English. Clearly, though, we should have redirects, and we should try to take care to explain the French titles somewhere. I would agree that perhaps earlier titles that are actually associated with rule of a particular region, rather than just being noble titles, should perhaps be treated differently. But I really don't see how using the convention that is generally used in English would be particularly confusing to readers. But perhaps we should take this to a naming conventions page and invite the participation of others. john k 16:05, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why do I think it would be confusing: Do you want to translate every French title or just some? Do you want to mix Duc d'Orléans and Duke of Burgundy in the same article (cf. John, Duke of Burgundy)? If not, do you suggest to change to Duc de Bourgogne? Hope not :) What I would like to see: keep, as you said, the earlier titles in English (Burgundy, Aquitaine, Lorraine, Bourbon, Vendôme, etc). The later titles, around the Revolution Era, could be in English (for the sake of uniformity), with bolded French translation immediately after the English name, since you say that this is more acording to other sources. What would you like to see? Muriel G 08:17, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I see the thing with "Duc de Bourgogne" - unlike most of the other things, the convention is generally to translate this into English. I'd note that I certainly don't want to translate every French title - that is what you want to do. I would say that titles below "Count" should always be in French. Titles of Count or higher should be in English only for people who are actually rulers of the territory in question. So Dukes of Burgundy, Dukes of Bourbon (up to 1527), Dukes of Orleans (up to 1498), Dukes of Normandy, and so forth, should all be in English. Titles which don't relate to actual territorial rule should not be translated. This is, I think, relatively non-confusing, and reasonably close to the usual standard of English language use, anyway. john k 09:38, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion, seems a good compromise between the established French titles and reasonability. If we are going to make this a convention, shouldnt we ask for other people's opinion? Muriel G 17:20, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I thought the move here was implicitly asking for other people's opinions. At any rate, who works on these types of pages who could perhaps be contacted through their talk page to give an opinion? I know of a lot of people who work on English language nobility, but can't really think of anyone who's done French stuff. Who works on early modern/medieval French history articles? john k 20:30, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As far as i know just Adam Bishop (great job in organizing the Rulers of Auvergne) and i already left him a message. Muriel G 09:43, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Using French titles for non-Sovereign nobles seems good to me, but I have one small point: I know the French generally don't capitalise the rank ("Jean Smith, duc de Smith" or what not), but it generally is capitalised when it's transferred to English, so we talk of "the Marquis de Sade", not "the marquis de Sade". Everything else, though, seems perfectly reasonable. Proteus (Talk) 08:47, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

When we talk about them, yes, we capitalise and say "the Marquis de Sade." But encyclopedias, and indices, and so forth, when writing out the full name, generally hold to the French convention of not capitalizing. I'd add that even for English titles, one doesn't always capitalize the rank - I've read various books which follow this convention. john k 16:06, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd rather we followed normal English usage than the usage of other encyclopaedias, and it would seem rather odd to me to talk of "the Marquis de Somewhere" in the text of an article whose title is "Jean de Somewhere, marquis de Somewhere". Also, I believe usage such as "the earl of Warwick" is normally confined to history books, in which constant capitalisation of the numerous titles mentioned might be seen to break the flow (and which describe times when the Earl of Warwick was actually the earl of a place called Warwick rather than just someone with the title "Earl of Warwick"). Proteus (Talk) 16:41, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Proteus, could you provide some citations where the capital for the rank is used when reporting the full name of a French nobleman? john k 17:15, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You only need to search on Google to see what people do. Searching for "Motier Marquis de la Fayette" shows sites in English mainly using "Marquis de la Fayette" and sites in French (or based in France) using "marquis de la Fayette". The French embassy in the US ([1]) actually uses "Marquis". Proteus (Talk) 12:07, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi guys, when I was working with French nobles, which I mostly borrowed from the French wikipedia, I tended to translate everything literally, even personal names (so Jean, duc du Berry, became John, Duke of Berry, etc). I wasn't sure exactly what to do with them, or even if they should be "Philip I of Burgundy" or, as Muriel writes them, "Philip I, Duke of Burgundy." In my own readings I see names and titles in English and French, or in Old French, or partly in Latin...I have no idea how names and titles work as time goes on and it gets closer to the Revolution, for the most part I am just interested in the nobles from around Charlemagne to around the 13th century, and I'm not sure there is a standard at all for those names (I can only think of one, "Stephen, Count of Blois" who I don't think is ever referred to in any other way). Sorry, this probably doesn't help :) Adam Bishop 16:31, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, one never sees "Etienne, Comte de Blois", does one? Most of the people you've been using would, I think, go with Muriel's suggested format, although I'm not sure about translation of personal names, because people who are Dukes of Burgundy or Counts of Blois were territorial rulers, and not just nobles - I do think we need some kind of rule for how to do articles on non-sovereign rulers - princes of the Holy Roman Empire, and so forth. I don't think "Henry I of Brunswick", or whatever, is a very good way to do it for such people. I'd prefer "Henry I, Duke of Brunswick." john k 17:15, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To see what has to be renamed, moved, etc, according to the discussed above, i shall make an inventory of titles and styles in the next few days. Stay in touch. Muriel G 10:51, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Adenda: I think we should adopt the format (whatever the language) NAME II, TITLE of PLACE. Again, Burgundy provides us a good example, since there were at the same time, Dukes and Counts of Burgundy, which means that Philip I of Burgundy, eg, is less informative. Muriel G 10:53, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Life peers

I believe I brought this up a while ago on WikiProject Peerage, but not many people seem to watch there, so I thought I'd bring it up here: at the moment all life peers have their articles at the names they had before they were ennobled, but I think the system should be the same as it is for hereditary peers. While there are obviously exceptions such as Jeffrey Archer and Paddy Ashdown, most life peers are now plucked from obscurity or were unknown backbench MPs, and are almost always known by their peerage and not their name. How many people would realise that Thomas Henry Bingham was Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the Senior Law Lord, or that Ted Short was Lord Glenamara? The standard format for hereditary peers (Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington) even allows both pre-ennnoblement name and peerage to appear in the title, which is surely the best of both worlds and allows the greatest amount of instant recognition. I believe that unless a peer is overwhelmingly better known by their pre-ennoblement name alone (normally through being a famous politician), then both the name and the peerage should appear in the article title. Charlie Falconer, Baron Falconer of Thoroton would make it much more obvious to most people at first glance, or in a Google search, that the article was about the Lord Chancellor and not some random bloke who happened to have the same surname as him. Proteus (Talk) 11:34, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I agree. john k 16:10, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I didn't think the existing rules were that prescriptive. Didn't we have a vote on that just the other day? Deb 12:11, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If there was a vote, I didn't see it. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) says "Life peers (ie, people who have peerages awarded exclusively for their lifetime but who neither inherit it nor pass it on to anyone else) are generally mentioned by their personal name not title, because among other reasons a life peerage is often awarded at the end of a career, while the individual holding them may be far more widely known though their personal name, so use George Robertson, not Lord Robertson." It's said that for as long as I can remember. Proteus (Talk) 12:24, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What you say is confirmation of what I thought. The word "generally" surely implies "not always". The vote I was thinking of related to hereditary titles, but the same applies there. It all depends on the individual case. Deb 21:08, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That rule is definitely being interpreted as saying "no peerages in article titles for life peers", even if that's not what it literally says, so I think either it should be rewritten or it should be removed altogether and all peers should be treated with the same criteria, whether life or hereditary (there's already a rule saying hereditary peers known exclusively by their pre-ennoblement name should not have the peerage in the title). Proteus (Talk) 12:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the same criteria should apply to all peers. For many individuals, the awarding of a life peerage marks the beginning of a "new career" in the House of Lords or as a senior judge. The current rule states that titles should not be included in all cases, though the justification only applies in some instances. -- Emsworth 21:13, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Would anyone have any objections, then, if I removed the paragraph about life peers and changed "Members of the hereditary nobility (ie, people who inherit their title), such as a marquess, viscount, count, duke. earl, etc., as with royals have two names" in paragraph 1 of that section to "Members of the nobility, such as a marquess, viscount, count, duke. earl, etc. (in the UK both hereditary and life peers), as with royals have two names"? Proteus (Talk) 18:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week, and no one's objected, so I'll take it that no one has any problems with that. Proteus (Talk) 09:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I just didn't understand what you meant by "two names". Deb 11:49, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"two names" is just what's written there at the moment. I assume it means that a hypothetical Lord Smith is both "John Smith" and "6th Baron Smith", and that both should be included. I'm simply proposing changing that section so what it says at the moment (which probably isn't the best way of phrasing it, I admit, but I didn't write it) applies to both hereditary and life peers, and deleting the exception for life peers. The same exception that allows David Lloyd George and Bertrand Russell would allow Betty Boothroyd, Andrew Lloyd Webber and Margaret Thatcher, while making the far more useful (for most life peers) Valerie Amos, Baroness Amos the standard. Proteus (Talk) 14:32, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Catherine Oxenberg's mother

I believe that the article on Catherine Oxenberg's mother should, according to our naming conventions, be at Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia, the name she uses in English-speaking countries, and which is part of her organization, the "Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia Foundation". However, others seem to think otherwise. We now have redirects (as the results of moves, etc.) at Kneginja Jelisaveta Karadjordjevic, Jelisaveta Karadjorjdevic, Princess Jelisaveta of Serbia, Countess Elizabeth of Serbia, Countess Jelisaveta of Serbia, Countess Jelisaveta of Serbia and Yugoslavia, Princess Elisabeth of Yugoslavia, and Princess Jelisaveta of Serbia and Yugoslavia. There are (at present) no double redirects, but they are created whenever someone decides on another name. Some guidance as to the proper place for the article would be welcome! -- Nunh-huh 18:49, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you - it should be at "Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia" - can't see any reason why not. Deb 21:08, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don`t agree. here is why-her family karadjordjevic is calling themselfs royal family of serbia and yugoslavia.Her family reigned both, Serbia and Yugoslavia. that is the first thing. so we have of Serbia and Yugoslavia; then her name is Jelisaveta and you can say it is just translated in english as elizabeth but you cannot translate it like petar-peter. now we have Jelisaveta of Serbia and Yugoslavia; her title is-princess(self proclaimed) and real-kneginja which is similar to countess, or duchess I don`t know. But we can write princess anyway. So finally it is Princess Jelisaveta of Serbia and Yugoslavia.

Avala 10:47, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would like to see Elizabeth, Princess of Yugoslavia since Princess, at least last time i checked, is not a proper name. Muriel G 10:55, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

of Serbia and Yugoslavia!!! Avala 12:38, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, Elizabeth, Princess of Serbia and Yugoslavia then :) Muriel G 13:36, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Muriel's suggestion implies that she's "The Princess of Serbia and Yugoslavia". I don't think this is the case. She is "Princess Elizabeth of ...." What about proper names? --Jiang 14:14, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I dont see where is the problem. A monarchy usually has several Princesses and Princes. Muriel G 14:21, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't see your point. Prince William of Wales does not belong at William, Prince of Wales. --Jiang 16:02, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And why not ? :) Muriel G 13:46, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ok!! I just saw the problem after i saved. You're right. Muriel G 13:57, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes but she is not direct princess. She could never become queen unless half of the family dies. You can see family tree on royal family website. Current crown prince is related to her over his father who had a brother with daughter --->Jelisaveta.

Finally she is not Elizabeth,elisabeth, or elizabeta she is Jelisaveta. I repeated numerous times that you cannot really translate it like petar-peter. It would be like if I translate your name Muriel as Milan in Serbian because it is similar.

Avala 15:53, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If she is more commonly called "Elizabeth" than "Jelisaveta" in English (which a quick Google search would seem to indicate is the case) then that's the name that should be used in her article title. We regularly translate the names of royalty if the anglicisation is more common than the original. Proteus (Talk) 16:04, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ok but i get much more on jelisaveta karadjordjevic than elizabeth karadjordjevic Avala 16:54, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A couple of points:

1. [First name, Princess of Such and Such] implies a unique title. We should use [Princess Firstname of Such and such]. This is the official policy.
2. Members of the House of Karageorgevic are always referred to as Princes/Princesses in English. I'm also uncertain why you say kneginja is similar to Countess. I assume it has the same root as the Russian "Knyaz", which is always translated as "Prince."
3. Elizabeth and Jelisaveta are clearly the same name. The name is usually translated into English. We should use "Elizabeth."
4. It is utterly irrelevant that half of the royal family would have to die for Elizabeth to inherit. Prince Michael of Kent could not possibly inherit the British throne, as he married a Catholic. His sister, Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Lady Ogilvy, could only inherit if about thirty people died without having any children. That doesn't make either one of them any less a prince or princess. (BTW, Princess Elizabeth is much more distantly related to Crown Prince Alexander than you say - but this is irrelevant).
5. As to "of Serbia and Yugoslavia," I'm not really sure. Certainly, for as long as Yugoslavia existed, the family emphasized the "Prince/ss of Yugoslavia" over the "Prince/ss of Serbia". I'm not sure what they do now. john k 17:27, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

SEE THIS:

• [2] - it says royal family of serbia and yugoslavia
• [3] - family tree where you can see relation to Jelisaveta

                                 Aleksandar
                                 ==========
                      PETAR          ---   ARSEN      
                      ALEKSANDAR I    -    PAVLE   
                      PETAR II             JELISAVETA 
                      ALEKSANDAR II

this tree has a fault because jelisaveta is distant sister of alexander II not aunt. i think that there is one more alexander than needed - (unsigned comment by Avala).

The page has now been moved to Jelisaveta, Princess of Serbia and Yugoslavia], breaking the redirects. Avala, please stop moving the page based on your personal preferences and try to follow our naming conventions. Also, what matters is what she calls herself, or rather what name she is known by in English, and that is Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia. She does not seem to share your objection to translation, which is the standard here. What her relatives call themselves (e.g. adding "of Serbia" because of their aspirations) is a tangential issue. - Nunh-huh 21:03, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ga, Jelisaveta, Princess of Serbia and Yugoslavia is awful. Can we just get it back to Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia? Also, Avala is clearly ignorant of English terms for cousin relationships. The Crown Prince and Elizabeth are second cousins, once removed. And the Family tree he presents is not incorrect - there is not an extra generation. john k 03:04, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would be very happy to move it there (again) and fix the redirects (again), I'm just trying to get consensus first, because everytime I've fixed it Avala's moved it to yet another name, and we don't need yet another! - Nunh-huh 03:21, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC) (BTW, I rather wish we could have a "nomenclature committee" who would just decide these things and everyone simply abide by them. I guess that would be insufficiently chaotic for a wiki...) - Nunh-huh 03:23, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Since we seem to be at consensus - 1, I'll do the fixing now. further thoughts still welcome. - Nunh-huh 06:31, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Monarchy of Hawaii

There seems to have been a dispute over the naming of Hawaiian monarchs this past week that got a bit ugly. Being argued is over whether or not the addition of the appendage "of Hawaii" at the end of the titles are actually necessary. The argument is that the Hawaiian royal names are unique to Hawaii and Hawaii only and therefore the appendage of country shouldn't be needed, much like other non-Western and non-European monarchs are titled on Wikipedia. (See the Japanese emperors: Hirohito, Akihito, etc.).

Also, the titles used for the Hawaiian monarchs seem confusing as they do not reflect the most common names they were known as, especially for the monarchs of the House of Kalakaua. Julia Kapiolani of Hawaii should be listed as just Kapiolani as she is popularly known. Believe it or not, many Hawaii residents don't know that Kapiolani's first name was Julia. David Kalakaua of Hawaii should be simplified to Kalakaua, the official name he adopted upon becoming king. At first I had difficulty finding these articles because of the complicated, confusing titles being used. And as for the "of Hawaii" appendage, they are totally unnecessary I think because again, the names are unique to Hawaii and Hawaii only.

I think it should be defined as policy that Hawaiian names be referred to by their one name titles assumed upon becoming king and queen, respectively....

• Kamehameha
• Kamehameha II
• Kamehameha III
• Kamehameha IV
• Kamehameha V
• Lunalilo
• Kalakaua
• Liliuokalani

As opposed to the titles given now...

• Kamehameha I of Hawaii
• Kamehameha II of Hawaii
• Kamehameha III of Hawaii
• Kamehameha IV of Hawaii
• Kamehameha V of Hawaii
• William C. Lunalilo of Hawaii, or William Charles Lunalilo of Hawaii
• David Kalakaua of Hawaii
• Liliuokalani of Hawaii

--James Easton 21:12, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sound okay to me. Note that I reverted some previous moves by an anon editor because they were done improperly using copy-and-paste rather than "move article", not to take any particular position on what the best name for the article is. Some earlier disussion on this topic at Talk:David Kalakaua of Hawaii. -- Infrogmation 21:40, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"of Hawaii" is needed, no matter how unique we think the title. At the moment Edward I redirects to Edward I of England. The use of William C. Lunalilo of Hawaii seems insulting if not POV, David Kalakaua ( which is the name I have most often come across) should redirect to Kalakaua of Hawaii for much the same reason. The point about Kamehameha vs Kamehameha I is covered under ordinals royal numbering. --garryq 10:23, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Other Non-royal names"

Sub item 4 " Honorary Titles" was talking about Bob Geldof (an honorary title). This was amended to Arthur Conan Doyle (a substantive title). To end the confusion I have changed the "Honorary Titles" to "Titles of Knighthood" and included the treatment of both honorary and substantive titles

Monarch titles

My suggestion is to give the regal title at the time of death, eg Queen Victoria would be Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, then say which Royal House they were born into. Then say the date and place of birth. Then say father's name (and his father). Then say mother's name (and her father). Then say date of ascention and coronation. Then saw length of reign.

This is a much more managable and less biased way of a monarch's page.

Life Peers policy

The life peers policy was flawed (as discussed above). Since no-one objected to the proposal, I have made the necessary changes. -- Emsworth 13:46, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looks reasonable, - but I only agree if the exceptions are kept as loosely defined as above. On the bright side it does seem the new policy allows us to have John Thurso at John Thurso. 80.229.39.194 13:50, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with the move of Bill Deedes. He is simply not known as Baron Deedes in the UK. 80.229.39.194 14:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree - he looks like someone primarily not known by his peerage title, and should probably be where he should be. It's people like Lord Falconer of Thoroton who should be with their peerage titles, eh? john k 14:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is Lord Deedes exclusively known as Bill Deedes, given that he has been a Baron for almost twenty years? -- Emsworth 14:41, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yep. You can't just look at a calendar and guess. The moving of Denis Healey is also wrong. 80.229.39.194 14:52, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And Cecil Parkinson. Please can you stop this. Thanks, 80.229.39.194 14:55, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to move it back if you believe the move was wrong. I have definitely decided to exclude: Lord Coe, Lord Ashdown, Lady Boothroyd, former PMs, and perhaps others as I come across them. Perhaps something easier to do would be to list below individuals whom you think should not be moved. For now, I will stop making the controverted moves; we can then discuss the individuals listed below as appropriate. -- Emsworth 14:59, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I will look into that. I suspect it would be a big list. I would suggest including all former Foreign Secretaries, Chancellors, and probably actually all former Cabinet members, along with former PMs from the list of ones to move now. I will not be especially bothered by movings of non-cabinet people. 80.229.39.194 15:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, one excludes those who were in the cabinet in the Lords (Lord Williams of Mostyn, Lady Amos, etc.) But the rule decided upon in the hereditary peers poll was that just personal names are to be used in the title when they are used exclusively in speech; the same standard has been applied to life peers. Google gives 2,420 hits for "Lord Howe of Aberavon," plus (most likely) a few from the 88,000 for "Lord Howe." So, how can one say that Lord Howe of Aberavon is exclusively referred to as Geoffrey Howe. -- Emsworth 15:09, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

He is generally known as Geoffrey Howe, I think. Google is going to be biased towards recent press accounts, which will use Lord Howe of Aberavon. At any rate, the idea behind the change was to allow the use of life peer titles in article titles for people who are mostly known by their life peerage title. The default should still be not to use the life peerage title, I think. If the person did famous stuff before they became a peer, they should be at just their name. john k 15:55, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about "Nobody whose life peerage is a retirement gift should be placed at their peerage title." That would exclude most of the people 80.229 wants to exclude, I think. john k 16:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's quite a good rule - as a default. I'd quite happy to see someone like Valerie Amos at Baroness Amos even, and the same for Baroness O'Cathain - I had to look up Detta and couldn't find it in any media. Other Lords we wouldn't want to move include Andrew Lloyd-Webber and John Birt. 80.229.39.194 16:07, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ooh, and another point is we should have a stronger presumption in favour of having the peerage name in the article title, if the peerage title is not the same as their surname. So if all else was equal, we might have John Smith (Baron Smith), but David Jones, Baron Walker 80.229.39.194 16:08, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that lots of people know individuals as "Lord such-and-such" even when the surname matches the title. The following articles have been moved:

• Timothy Beaumont, Baron Beaumont of Whitley - agree
• Anthony Barber, Baron Barber [I moved this one back - a former chancellor of the exchequer - john k 16:26, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)]
• Edward Short, Baron Glenamara - agree [disagree, better known for his Commons role - Deb 10:14, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)]
• James Mackay, Baron Mackay of Clashfern [Agree, Lord Chancellor - Ems.]
• David Renton, Baron Renton - [agree; "David Renton" gives 1,820 on Google, but "Lord Renton" gives 6,770. Even after the 1,010 for "Lord Renton of Mount Harry" are subtracted, "Lord Renton" is more common than "David Renton." - Ems.]
• Charles Forte, Baron Forte
• James Hanson, Baron Hanson
• Joel Barnett, Baron Barnett
• Gerry Fitt, Baron Fitt - disagree [moved back - Ems.]
• Bill Deedes, Baron Deedes - disagree [moved back - Ems.]
• Tessa Blackstone, Baroness Blackstone
• Derry Irvine, Baron Irvine of Lairg - [Agree, Lord Chancellor - Ems.]
• William Rees-Mogg, Baron Rees-Mogg - mildly disagree [disagree - better known as journalist Deb 10:14, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)]
• John Sainsbury, Baron Sainsbury of Preston Candover
• Ivor Richard, Baron Richard
• Lydia Dunn, Baroness Dunn
• David Waddington, Baron Waddington
• Detta O'Cathain, Baroness O'Cathain - agree
• Colin Renfrew, Baron Renfrew of Kaimsthorn [disagree - much better known as an archaeologist - Deb 10:14, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)]
• Brian Rix, Baron Rix - [disagree - much much better known as an actor - Deb 10:14, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)]
• David Wilson, Baron Wilson of Tillyorn
• John Wakeham, Baron Wakeham - agree [disagree - better known for his Commons role - Deb 10:14, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)]
• Denis Healey, Baron Healey - disagree [already moved this one back - john k 16:26, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)]
• Cecil Parkinson, Baron Parkinson - disagree [moved back - Ems.]
• Geoffrey Howe, Baron Howe of Aberavon - disagree [already moved this one back - john k 16:26, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)]
• Quintin Hogg, Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone - disagree [not sure what I think of this one - He did serve as Lord Chancellor as Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone, but he also served as Viscount Hailsham earlier on - that suggests that Hailsham ought to be somewhere in there, but I'm not really sure - john k 16:26, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)] [Agree, Lord Chancellor; Previous peerage was disclaimed - Ems.] - changed mind, agree Morwen

- Talk

wny not redirects to Lord Hailsham (his commonest form) ? At least one is needed anyway between viscountcy and life peerage --garryq 23:13, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it's been widely thought that no articles should be at the form Lord Such and such. Obviously, someone like Lord Hailsham ought to have a variety of redirects. john k 23:58, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Charlie Falconer, Baron Falconer of Thoroton - agree [Agree, Lord Chancellor - Ems.]
• Valerie Amos, Baroness Amos - agree [Agree, minister in the HoL - Ems.]
• Margaret Jay, Baroness Jay of Paddington - don't agree, she was better known as Margaret Jay Deb 10:14, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Waheed Alli, Baron Alli
• Tom King, Baron King of Bridgwater [agree - (was at "Tom King (politician)") - Ems.] - don't agree, he was well known as a cabinet minister under his real name - Deb 10:14, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've marked the ones I have an opinion on, agree/disagree. 80.229.39.194 16:19, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just adding that I have a book by Colin Renfrew, and he should probably be at his name, although I'm not really sure on it. john k 16:27, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(80.229.39.194 is me by the way as you can verify from the very similar sort of stuff in the contributs list ;) Morwen - Talk 16:52, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've added Gareth Wyn Williams, Baron Williams of Mostyn. john k 23:58, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What the hell is going on!? We had a consistent policy that was working, and now we have a mess arguing over whether someone should be listed at their peerage or not. Why was this policy changed. It makes no sense to me Mintguy (T)

Well, you ought have objected on one of the several previous occasions when the suggestion was brought up. Essentially, the idea was that by never using life peerage titles, we were making articles on some people almost impossible to find, since they're never referred to by their usual names. There were no particular objections to a conservative application of this principle (although I'll agree that Emsworth, at least initially, was too enthusiastic in moving pages), so Emsworth and I decided to put it into practice. At any rate, I don't think anything that insane has happened. In fact, I haven't noted any arguments, particularly - discussion, certainly, and some objections to moves that Emsworth made, but nothing especially serious. john k 19:01, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I also think we may be going too far now, and have marked my disagreements above. Deb 10:14, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This page wasn't on my watch list. so I couldn't object. There is going to be a whole host of arguments about this, with pages being moved to and fro. There are certain individuals who may not have had widespread national attention before their peerage but were prominent locally. A case in point is Giles Radice was was an MP for something like 30 years. Also people think of individuals differently depending on what generation they are from. Brian Rix for example will be familiar to people today as Lord Rix, and Mencap. But to anyone over 40 he is more familiar as the man behind the Whitehall Theatre farces. Mintguy (T) 11:12, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)