Talk:Ancestry of Elizabeth II/Archive 1

Untitled
Wouldn't this list be more fair and logical, as well as easier to read, if women were listed by their birth names rather than their married ones? as it is, you can't really comprehend one generation without looking down at the next. Doops | talk 06:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you very strongly. I can see that some might argue that at the time the child was born that the mother, being married, would be correctly addressed by her husbands name. However I think most genealogists would use the mother's maiden name in a list such as this. I think only people without experience of studying genealogies would using women's married names. However, I must say that I have also noticed in a number of place in Wikipedia that editors seem to like similar notation e.g. John Smith was son of Jane Smith (nee Brown), whereas I would prefer John Smith son of Jane Brown if intent of the sentence was to give genealogical information. If there is a consensus on this I think we should edit accordingly Op. Deo 08:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC) Also see maiden name

OK, I made the change. Note that I had to guess at the maiden name of #29; and that the maiden names of #41, 47, 53, 55, & 57 are not given. If anybody knows these, please put them in. Thanks. Doops | talk 04:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Ahnenwhat?
"Ahnentafel" is not an English word, nor is there any need to use a pretentious and obscure (German?) expression for a perfectly straightforward concept such as a table showing someone's ancestors. I will revert any return to this title. Adam 13:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Bring it to requested moves. Ahnentafel is a loanword and is used extensively in genealogy, which is what is presented in the article. If you don't like it, create another article on the Queen's ancestry. Charles 19:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While the use of the word Ahnentafel in the title is not incorrect, I agree with Adam, it is best not used in the title - what most people will be looking for is ancestry or something like that. Ahnentafel is linked at the opening of the page to explain the format. Surely that is sufficient? I see little point in creating another article on ancestry as suggested by Charles. I vote for reverting to Ancestors of Queen Elizabeth II. Op. Deo 20:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is what it is, which is an ahnentafel. It is linked from the Queen's page and is available through redirects. Charles 20:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The use of technical terms, particularly foreign ones, is only justified when there is no precise English equivalent. I have no objection to weltanschauung or doppelganger or schadenfreude. "Ahnentafel" however is just German for "genealogical table," which is all this article is. There is no more justification for using a German name for it than there would be for using a French or Chinese one. It is Wikipedia policy to use English wherever possible. I will wait a while for further comments, but my current intention is to redirect to the English title. Adam 00:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahnentafel has become an English term, specifically because the name originated in German and migrated to English where it is used in genealogy.. Read the article on it. The justification in using a "German" name is that it, and not a French or Chinese name, became accepted and is now used. As far as I am concerned, genealogical table is no more a term than ghostly double is... Yet we have doppelgänger. Charles 01:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if the use of the term as an English word is not incorrect, there is no need for it in the article title, unless we have articles displaying some other sort of list of ancestors. The article/list/table is about the ancestors of a certain person - the fact that it follows a certain format is of secondary importance and does not belong in the title. This would be true even if it were a well known term in English, and since it isn't, it definitely shouldn't be there. JPD (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a concise term and is about as well-known as schadenfreude or any other comparable word. Charles 15:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologise for coming back again, but it appears to me wrong to claim that that ahnentafel which does not appear in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary is about as well known as schadenfreude which does. I have heard of schadenfreude being used in general edcuated population, but I have never encountered ahnentafel outside a very narrow group of genealogy specialists talking amongst themselves or as an the name for a type of output produced by a genealogy software programme. I think JPD has expressed the case very well for reverting to the original title.Op. Deo 16:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The point of Wikipedia is to provide accessibility and to educate. Ahnentafel isn't as obscure as people are claiming, nor is it an "inaccessible" word. There is an article here about it! It is concise and describes the article perfectly. There are redirects from Ancestors of, etc. Charles 20:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that having an article about it in this encyclopaedia makes the term "ahnentafel" legitimate. Of course no one outside of genealogists uses the word; they have no need to.  --Arctic Gnome 21:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No-one disputes that the word exists and has a specialist usage among genealogists. But it has no currency outside such circles, and is totally unknown to the general educated public, even those with an amateur interest in genealogy, such as me (I wrote the original version of this article, by the way). It can be used in the text of the article but not in the title. Adam 00:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because you are not familiar with the word doesn't mean that you can dictate whether or not it has currency. Charles 03:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

move.--cj | talk 08:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Ahnentafel of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Ancestry of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom – I have rarely seen such arrogance and intellectual snobbery as shown by Charles in his insistence in imposing this obscure piece of German jargon on an English-language article. I will now lodge a formal request for this article to be moved to Ancestors of Queen Elizabeth II and locked there. Adam 08:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support: Adam 08:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: I see no reason to use the German term in the article title. john k 13:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: Ahnentafel is the name of the genealogical system apparently. Using that word to state how the article is laid out is sufficient - it doesn't need to be part of the article title.  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support: Ahnentafel is a word that is unknown to most people and for which an English alternative exists: this article will be much more useful to readers with the English term in the title.--Stonemad GB 20:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the English term for Ahnentafel? Charles 21:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Genealogical table" Adam 00:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose Ahnentafel is a loanword that is established in English. It is accurate as the title of this article. Ancestors is an insufficient translation for Ahnentafel which is used in English itself. Ancestors itself is not as finite as Ahnentafel. Charles 21:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The article itself is a list of ancestors of the Queen. The form used is an Ahnentafel, but that does not need to be used in the title of the article. john k 23:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, as I'd say Ahnentafel, loanword or not, is too specialist for an article title in a general encylcopedia. Retain it linked in the text as at present. Regards, David Kernow 01:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. It is reportedly not in OED; it is not in Merriam-Webster or American Heritage either. Move to new title and link "Ahnentafel" in the text to its article. --SigPig 05:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Ahnentafel is not in the online OED; this argues very strongly against its use as an article title, except on the concept itself - no-one will search for it. In any case, Ancestry is the subject of the article; the Ahnentafel is the format. Septentrionalis 21:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. See for example my several comments in the section above titled ahnenwhat? Op. Deo 07:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

After three days the poll is Support 8, Oppose 1 (Charles). That seems to meet any reasonable definition of consensus. I am now requesting an Admin to move the article back to its ancestral title and prevent any further reversions. Adam 08:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Snobbery?:


 * Just because you are not familiar with the word doesn't mean that you can dictate whether or not it has currency. Charles 03:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it does. Adam 14:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that you removed that little statement when adding your ridiculous requested move. Charles 21:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Adam has a very legitimate point: almost no one knows what that word means! It's just common sense to say that "Ahnentafel" is nowhere near as commonly used as "Ancestry".  If you don't like common sense, how about policy?  The third paragraph of the official policy, WP:NC, states:
 * Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
 * ...and then a couple lines below that:
 * Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.
 * Please don't try to tell me that a general audience would recognize what Ahnentafel means. I've dabbled in personal genealogy and have only come across that word a few times.  And your assertion that ancestry is less finite than Ahnentafel - Ahnentafel is simply a numbering system - did numbers become finite since my last advanced calculus class?
 * —Wknight94 (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but one tries to end an Ahnentafel with a complete generational set. The free-reign with regards to ancestors, etc, has composed a few articles that have been deleted. Charles 13:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * First, I don't read anything about being finite in the Ahnentafel article. Second, which ancestry articles have been deleted due to lack of finiteness?  —Wknight94 (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Namely there was the one about Nicholas II of Russia and there were other ones with partial ancestry for various other sovereigns. Charles 19:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ancestors of Nicholas II of Russia was deleted because it was a total mess and impossible to read, not because of a lack of finiteness. I'm 100% in favor of using the Ahnentafel system to organize the article - I'm saying there's no advantage to using the word "Ahnentafel" to name the article.  Now that I see there's an Ahnentafel of Nicholas II of Russia, I'll likely do a WP:RM for that too.  —Wknight94 (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Even Futher...
She is of decent of William the Conqueror. Williams son, Henry married Matilda. She was decended from Kenneth MacAlpin. so there are alot of tribes aswell. Don't forget she is a Cousin of Alfred the Great. and so is a cousin of both Edward the Confessor and Harold II...or was he #3... you know... Edwards ex-brother in law.OsirisV 13:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And so her desent is of... French, Scandinavian, Germanic, Pictish, Welsh, German...OV —Preceding unsigned comment added by OsirisV (talk • contribs) 10:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism in ancestor section
Someone (singular or plural) vandalized the article by changing the number of issue of many of the ancestors. It's too late to revert back. I cleaned up what I could. Could someone more familiar with the subject matter take a look. Thanks.-- Sandahl 04:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I am one of the "vandals" because I changed the numbers beside people's names in the ancestry table. I have seen a lot of ancestry tables and have never observed a table that stated how many children a person had. All of the tables I have seen have always tried to identify connections between people in the table. So, number 16 would state that he is the father of number 8, and not that he is the father of a certain number of children.Rdthiessen 23:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Length of the table
I added two more generations to the table earlier today but they were removed. Are there guidelines somewhere that dictate the length of ancestry tables? I don't see the harm in increasing the number of generations in this type of article, especially when a number of the individuals listed in the two generations I had added also have articles in Wikipedia. However, if there is some sort of standard to which people have agreed in Wikipedia, I am fine with that. Rdthiessen 23:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This came up a while ago when the issue of actually having the Ahnentafels on Wikipedia came up. At that time, the length of a few of the articles was discussed as being superfluous. Namely, I can think of Nicholas II of All the Russia's Ahnentafel. Around that time, all of the known royal Ahnentafels on Wikipedia were augmented to or trimmed back to the great-great-great-grandparents to avoid having already lengthy articles essentially double in length each time a generation is added. Past that point, the articles begin to become a little unwieldy and border on cases for arguments against having lists and genealogy on Wikipedia, or for adding things without discrimination for the sake of that fact that it could be added. In the past and even now, people are getting frustrated with the inclusion of the seize quarters for most royals and this goes back even further by a generation. After around the great-great-great-grandparents connections become more and more remote and one has to discriminate a little bit given that a lot of royals can go back very, very far. Charles 04:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Other Ancestors
Should her forefathers Prophet Muhammad, Genghis Khan, Wacho, Liuvigild, Ügyek, Ruben I and Cyrus the Great be mentioned. All modern royal houses in Europe are descendant from all of them. 84.202.146.138 (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC) And Julius Caesar' sister. 84.202.146.138 (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * William I of England was King before Khan was born (the Norman invasion being a hundred years before he was born). We had rulers before that too. So saying that our Rulers are descended from Khan, is really the wrong way to go about it. Now add to the fact that (correct me if I am wrong) that this is unproven. They, if anything, may have a possibility of having a drop of dna which arguably has a chance of being related to Genghis Khan. Doesn't sound very strong does it.
 * As for using mohammad? At least stick to historical characters. This just sounds like someone putting up there for a joke. DarkMithras

Elizabeth I
Apparently Elizabeth II is not keen on her namesake, allegedly saying, "I don't like her much; she beheaded my ancestor". Antonia Fraser recalls how some American tourists insisted that QEII was descended from QEI: "she claimed to be a virgin, but you know what that means"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ausseagull (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You said about the ancestry,ok this is what I quoted,

"Elizabeth bears lineage from, amongst others, Arab, Armenian, Cuman, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Serbian, and Swedish ethnicities,[1] as well as, according to Moroccan and Chinese officials, respectively, being directly descended from the Prophet Muhammad and Tang Dynasty Chinese Emperors.[2] Further, via her grandmother, Queen Mary, Elizabeth is thought to be descended from Genghis Khan.[1]"

What make it proof that she was descended from the Prophet Muhammad?

I think you should read the history first. Because not all history are true. There is so many fabrication of the fact and data. You must discover which one are true and which one is not.

I hope you must make editing as soon as possible.

Nabihahalimon (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Mohammed? Gengis Khan??
Can someone explain to me how Queen Elizabeth is "directly descended" from Mohammed, the Tang Dynasty or Gengis Khan, as it is stated in this article?--Sid-Vicious (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, the British royal family is descended from Muhammad through the Arab kings of Seville, who once ruled Spain. Through marriage, their blood passed through the European kings of Portugal and Castille, until it reached King Edward IV in the 15th century, where it has descended since.

A possible Tang link is as follows:

0 Elizabeth II 1 George VI 2 George V 3 Edward VII 4 Victoria 5 Edward 6 George III 7 Frederick 8 George II 9 George I 10 Sophia m. Ernst Augustus, Elector of Hanover 11 Elizabeth m. Frederick V of Bavaria 12 James VI of Scotland / James I of England 13 Mary of Guise m. James V of Scotland 14 Antoinette de Bourbon ( 1493 – 1583) m. Claude, Duke of Guise 15 Marie of Luxembourg (died 1 April 1547) m. Francis Bourbon 16 Peter II (Pierre de Luxembourg; 1440-25 October 1482) 17 Louis de Luxembourg(1418 – 1475) 18 Margaret de Baux (1394- 1469) m. Peter (Luxemburg) 1390-1433 19 Anne de Lusignan m. Louis (Savoy) 20 James I de Lusignan m. Charlotte Bourbon 21 Jacques I 22 Alix d'Ibelin (see note) 23 Guy d'Ibelin 24 Alix m. Balian d'Ibelin 25 Hetum II 26 daughter m. Auschin I (Lampron) 27 Abul Gharib 28 Hasan 29 Katchik I 30 Derenik 31 Abu Sahl Hamazasp III 32 Michke m. Katchik-Gagik (Vaspurakin) 33 Abul-Hamza 34 Surkhab 35 Abul Melik 36 Qarin 37 Shahriyar I 38 Karim 39 Sharwin I 40 Bayanue (daughter) m. Surkhab II (Tabaristan) 41 Ning-Kuo (daughter) m. Moyenhur (Uighur) 42 Emperor Su Tsung (Tang)

After the Mongol invasion of Russia, the Rurikid rulers of Russian principalities were eager to obtain political advantages for themselves and their countries by marrying into the House of Genghis. Here is a possible line of descent of Elizabeth II to Genghis Khan:

Elizabeth II, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland 1952- George VI, King of /Great Britain and Ireland/ 1936-52 Mary of Teck (May), Queen of /England/ b 1867 d 1953 Francis Paul Charles, Duke of /Teck/ b 1837 d 1900 Claudine, Countess /Rhedey/ b 1812 d 1841 Agnes Inczedy de /Nagy-Varad/ b 1788 d 1856 Gregor Inczedy de /Nagy-Varad/ d 1816 Agnes Kendeffy de /Malomviz/ b ~1727 Katalin Kuun de /Osdola/ Christina Racz de /Galgo/ Peter Racz de /Galgo/ Adam Racz de /Galgo/ Semphira Logofat de /Szaszebes/ d ~1602 Stanca Basarab of /Wallachia/ Mircea III "the Shepherd", Prince of /Wallachia/ d 1559 Radu IV "the Great", Prince of /Wallachia/ 1495-1508 Vlad IV "the Monk" of /Wallachia/ d 1495 Vlad II Dracul, Prince of /Wallachia/ 1436-42, 1443-47, illegitimate Mircea the Elder, Prince of /Wallachia/ 1386-1418 Radu I, Prince of /Wallachia/ ~1377 - ~1383 Alexander, Prince of /Wallachia/ Basarab I, Prince of /Wallachia/ ~1310-1352 Thocomerius "Toq-Timur", Prince of Wallachia ~1290-~1310, link to Basarab questioned Mongke-Timur, 5th Khan of the /Golden Horde/ 1266-82 Tuta Khan Batu Khan of the /Golden Horde/ 1224-56 Juchi, 1st Khan of the /Golden Horde/ d 1227 Genghis Khan d 1227, link to Juchi questioned AlwynJPie (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

AlwynJPie (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

AlwynJPie (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)