Talk:Constantine II of Greece/Archive 2

Danish Passport
It is correct that (ex-)King Constantine travels using a Danish diplomatic passport. But the passport doesn't name him as "King Constantine of Greece". According to the Danish tabloids, he passport names him as "DeGrecia" in (mock) Italian. I believe that his first name is spelled in Italian too ("Constantine DeGrecia"). In Denmark, the government recognizes Greece as a republic but Anne-Marie is still popular among the older generation. Queen Margrethe publicly refers to the couple as the King and Queen of Greece. If asked, she replies something like "As I see it, once a king, always a king". --Valentinian 11:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That is how deposed monarchs who have not abdicated are referred to as. Their old title becomes a form of customary title for their lifetime. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)  21:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Even ones who have abdicated often continue to be referred to by the title they had when reigning. King Michael of Romania, for instance, is always called that.  Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg is still known as Grand Duke, even though he has abdicated... john k 21:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless we should call people by their names unless they have a current title. So this article calls him Constantine of Schleswig-Holstein-Etc-Etc, rather than Constantine II, King of the Hellenes, a title which the Greek people abolished in 1974. Adam 02:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, we should call people by how they are generally known. Constantine is not generally known as Constantine Glucksburg, or whatever the hell the Greek government wants to call him.  The fact that the Greek people abolished the title of King of the Hellenes is irrelevant to what we should call him.  He is no longer the King of the Hellenes.  But he is still King Constantine, even if he is not king of anything anymore. john k 05:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You can call him whatever the hell you like. I wonder what he calls himself.  'King of the people', the people that dont want even to see him?  Or just 'king' in the absence of a kingdom? Somewhat pitiful.

GK

Transliteration of Title
Is upsilon normally transliterated with an "f"? Ardric47 19:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

In modern Greek the letter combination "eu" (epsilon-upsilon) is pronounced either "ev" or "ef" depending on what letter it preceeds. Hence we have the ancient "eucharist" but the modern Greek "efharisto" (thankyou). The same is true of "au", so Greeks say "Afstralia." Adam 02:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph on his current title
"As an exiled monarch who had not abdicated, unlike Michael of Romania and Simeon of Bulgaria, Constantine is still formally referred to internationally as King of Greece though as a courtesy title, not a constitutional office. Constantine is frequently mocked in the left-wing Greek press, where he is frequently referred to as Mr. Glucksburg. This practice is meant to stress the notion that Constantine is not of ethnic Greek origin. Critics dismiss such attitudes as racist."

This paragraph is incorrect in several respects:
 * He is not an "exiled monarch". He is an ex-monarch. The Greek monarchy was abolished by democratic decision of the Greek people in 1974.
 * He is not "formally" refered to as anything, since he has no "formal" status.
 * The title used by the Greek monarchy was "King of the Hellenes", not "King of Greece."

On the broader point, whether or not Constantine is called by his former title by various people is entirely irrelevant to what he should be called at Wikipedia. He holds no title and should be called by his name, which (in English) is Constantine of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. I am happy to delete the references to what he is called in the Greek press, since I don't read the Greek press and can't vouch for the accuracy of these statements. Adam 09:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Adam, King Constantine left Greece following his failed counter-coup against the Junta. He remained in exile ever since. The monarchy was abolished first by a Junta-held referendum in 1973 and secondly by a referendum held after the restoration of parliamentary rule. I agree he is an ex-monarch, but insist that he certainly is in exile, i.e. "one who lives away from one's native country, whether because of expulsion or voluntary absence" (American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company). Now as for his title: He is certainly no longer "Constantine King of the Hellenes" by is certainly still is King Constantine, very much in the same way that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are still formally referred to as President Carter and President Clinton. It is part of internationally accepted protocol, whether we like it of not. As for "Constantine of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg", King Constantine (as well as his ancestors a few generations back) have never ever used such a surname -- and forcing this name upon him is quite questionable. The motivation for referring to King Constantine as "Mr. Glucksburg" is to underline the idea that he "not ethnically Greek" and "a foreigner." Many (including myself) discern populism and racism in such an approach.
 * In conclusion: It is absolutely in live with international protocol for him to use "King Constantine", or "Constantine, former King of the Hellenes/of Greece", or "Constantine of Greece". He may *not* call himself (nor does he!) "Constantine, King of the Hellenes". Furthermore, the view that "he is unlikely he will ever return to live in Greece" is far from NPOV and not Wiki-compatible! Rastapopoulos 09:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

In reply:
 * I agree that Constantine is an exile (although I don't think under EU rules the Greek government could stop him from living in Greece if he chose to). But the text says he is an "exiled monarch" and this is incorrect. He is not a monarch of any description.
 * The comparison with ex-Presidents is spurious. Presidents hold their office for a fixed term, not for life. Jimmy Carter does not claim to be still the legal President of the US, and no-one who calls him "President Carter" means to imply that he is. Calling an ex-King a King is not a courtesy, it is a political statement, and for us to do so is clearly POV.
 * The article does not call him "Constantine Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg" as though Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg was a surname. I agree that it is not a surname. It is the title of his family, and since he is no longer a King that is what he should be called unless and until he adopts a surname (as Simeon of Bulgaria has adopted Sakskoburgottski).
 * I am not interested in "international protocol" (whatever that might be), and nor should Wikipedia be. I am interested in calling people by their names. The Kings of the Hellenes held their throne by constitutional right, and that right ended in 1974. Constantine is therefore not King of anything or anyone, and it is grossly POV to say he is when the Greek people have decided otherwise.
 * I have deleted the sentence about returning to Greece.

On your edits. Adam 10:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Adam 10:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You can't just make up a new title for him. He is either Constantine II, King of the Hellenes, or he isn't. He has never claimed to be plain "King Constantine."
 * This is an English-language encyclopaedia. If terms in non-Roman alphabets are used, they must be transliterated for those who can't read Greek.


 * In reply:
 * King Constantine and President Carter are both former heads of state who were both "voted out", so the analogy is perfect and non-spurious. Neither of them claim to still be heads of state, but both are referred to by their former titles as per diplomatic protocol (by virtue of what higher authority one can completely dismiss international protocol on behalf of Wikipedia is utterly beyond me!)
 * You accept that Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg is a "title". I submit to you that so is King, for any ex-monarch. You are not really convincing when you claim that he "should" (sic) use a title his family have not used in centuries, but not that of his former role as head of state!
 * I am not inventing anything. Just stating that it is absolutely acceptable for him by international as well as Greek law to identify himself "King Constantine," "Constantine of Greece" of "Constantine, former King of the Hellenes". As a matter of fact, his official post-referendum Greek passport said so, until it was revoked (and his citizenship was stripped away) by decree of the late Andreas Papandreou!
 * I challenge you to cite me any post-referendum quotation of Constantine, where he refers to himself a "Constantine, King of the Hellenes". He has never done so. He either uses King Constantine (alone) or Constantine of Greece / de Grecia / etc.


 * I will edit the entry accordingly. Rastapopoulos 10:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If, as I believe is the case, Constantine has not abdicated or in some other way renounced his claim to the throne, then he must style himself "Constantine II, King of the Hellenes." To do otherwise would be in effect to renounce his claim. But we cannot use that title, because he is not "King of the Hellenes," a title which was abolished by the Greek people in 1974. Clearly you don't recognise their right to do so, but Wikipedia cannot share the fantasies of diehard Greek monarchists.
 * To suggest that something called "international protocol" has the force of law is absurd. If some people wish to humour ex-Kings by using their defunct titles, that is their business. This is an encyclopaedia, not a royalist nostalgia circle. Adam 11:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I really think you should read my answers again.
 * How dare you call my arguments "fantasies of diehard Greek monarchists"? Ad hominem attacks are the last resort of poor debaters.

Rastapopoulos 12:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Adam 12:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Good for you, it just happens that your POV is not necessarily NPOV.Rastapopoulos 13:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Why the censorship, Adam?
The half paragraph you deleted was factual, non-POV and very relevant. Why remove it? Sysin 11:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Because I am trying to get a settled paragraph which contains agreed statements of fact. The line about his being able to return to Greece is an opinion. References to what he is called in Greek newspapers aren't "very relevant", and can't be verified. Adam 11:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My edits were not about his ability to return to Greece (or lack thereof). I linked the NY Times article in my edit, how more verifiable can you get? Are the New York Times "irrelevant"? Αs for the Greek newspapers, it is very easy to verify using google. Check this for example; the MPA is a major news organization, and their attitude towards the Teos and those who refer to him as "king" is typical. Sysin 13:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Very relevant to this article's disputes
Please also see Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece. If there exists a point for labelling Constantine as a former king, what is to be done about a self styled "Crown Prince of Greece"? Personally (as a staunch greek democrat) I can live with a former king referred to as "of Greece" in wikipedia. But a never-has-been, never-will-be "crown prince" is beyond my scope. The ongoing dispute here has much to offer to this article.. Michalis Famelis 12:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Efharisto poli for pointing that out. I have renamed the article Paul of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg and edited it to conform with the real world. Adam 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, thanks Adam! I can now point out that this also applies for the "royal children and grandchildren" of Constantine. They are mostly refered to as "prince/ess of Greece and Denmark". I don't know about the "of Denmark" part, but the "of Greece" is absurd for people born after the 1975 refenderum!! I dont have time now (I'm already late for class, am I a wikipediholic?) and I don't know what is to be done for those templates but the links are: Also there is the template thing.
 * Princess Alexia of Greece and Denmark
 * Prince Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark
 * Princess Theodora of Greece and Denmark
 * Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark
 * Princess Maria Olympia of Greece and Denmark
 * Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark
 * Prince Achileas Andreas of Greece and Denmark
 * Prince Odysseas Kimon of Greece and Denmark

(evil sarcastic note: it seems that the more recent the child, the more names it is given.. Maybe they try to compensate with number of names for glamour?)

Michalis Famelis 12:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to spend all my time editing fantasy biographies of fantasy princes and princesses. Someone more fiercely republican than me can do it. Adam 12:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

His claimed status
We are now told that "Constantine has repeatedly stated that he recognized the republic and the laws and the constitution of Greece." Can we have a source or citation for this statement? If it is true, then he has in effect abdicated, since clearly he can't claim to be king of a country if he recognises it to be a republic. And if that is the case then obviously he can't be called by a title he no longer claims. If he insists he has no surname, then he will have to called plain "Constantine." Adam 12:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * By all means: "I repeatedly stated in Greece, on television to the Greek people, that I recognized the republic and the laws and the constitution of my country. I'm not about to overthrow anybody. All I want is to be treated as an equal....I want to be allowed to go in and out of the country whenever I like, stay in my home, let my children live there" ("King Without A Country," Interview with Bob Colacello, Vanity Fair, July 1995)
 * Recent interview with Greek Journalist Thanasis Lalas in BHMAgazino (magazine of Greek sunday newspaper TO BHMA)- in Greek.
 * Furthermore:
 * Titles of nobility are not allowed in Greece, and were also not allowed during the constitutional monarchy period. The use of expressions such as King / Prince / Queen etc were official state titles (*not* titles of nobility) that were *issued for life* by the then constitution.
 * IMHO, the retroactive abolition of a title issued for life, as well as the stripping of one's citizenship ("unless oen agrees with retroactive terms") are at best banana republic practices.

Rastapopoulos 13:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Very well. I am willing to accept Rastapopoulos's new text, with a few edits I have made. I was not aware that Constantine had recognised the Greek republic and thus in effect renounced his claim to be king, but of course that makes it all the clearer that the article cannot begin by describing him as "King of the Hellenes". One cannot claim to be king of a republic.

Two points on the current text:
 * There is no rule that deposed royal families have to go on using fantasy titles. Otto von Habsburg doesn't call himself Emperor Otto.
 * It is a fact that the Greek royal family has no Greek blood whatever. I don't think this is a relevant sentence, but if you insist on including it then the matter must be stated correctly. The Greek royals are a mix of Danish, German and Russian. Adam 13:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It's getting late here in Afstralia, so am going to bed now. Kalinikhta to all and we will resume debate in the morning. Adam 13:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "It is a fact that the Greek royal family has no Greek blood whatever" (Adam)


 * One's "blood" has nothing to do with anything. My very point is that stressing that "Constantine should be called Glucksburg and is not a Greek because he has no Greek blood" is as odious and as racist as saying that "George Papandreou is not really Greek because his mother is Bulgarian-American and his grandmother was Lithuanian." These ugly arguments are unfortunately still encountered, respectively, among Greek leftists and extreme-rightists.
 * Kalinyxta, Rastapopoulos 13:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, I am quite happy to have no reference to his ethnic origins, but if the matter is to be refered to it must be stated correctly. That the Greek royals are not ethnically Greek is a fact and not an allegation. That Papandreou is only a quarter Greek is also a fact, but then he is not claiming to be King of the Hellenes. Adam 22:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My points are that: Rastapopoulos 07:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * According to law, Constantine is a Greek national both according to Jus Sanguinis (being a fourth generation Greek) and Jus Soli (having been born in Greece). His nationality had nothing to do with his previous status as head of state. Stripping away one's citizenship is a practice incompatible with a democratic government (I think the last such precedent in Greece is when the junta stripped away Melina Mercouri's citizenship.
 * Being Greek has nothing to do with "blood". Just as being American, French or whatever. Unless one is a racist. For example, a 19th century racist, Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer, argued that modern Greeks are not Greek because they have "non-Greek" blood. Such theories are discredited, particularly since the outcome of the second world war.

Making up names
Just wanted to note that, whatever you think of Constantine or his family, the fact remains that the only names by which they are known are "king Constantine," "Prince So and So of Greece and Denmark," and so forth. They are never called "So and so Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg," and to call them that is just completely fraudulent in the worst traditions of stupid wikipedia making up shit. Also, it is to be noted that Pavlos, being born in 1967, was, legally, the Crown Prince from 1967 until the abolition of the monarchy in 1973.

Basically, the generaly diplomatic practice for abolished monarchies is as follows: everyone gets to keep the highest title they have. thus, Constantine gets to be "King Constantine." His son gets to be the Crown Prince. The current head of the Karageorgevic house gets to be Crown Prince Alexander. King Umberto II of Italy got to be King Umberto, and so forth. If you never help a proper title under the monarchy itself, members of old royal families are generally referred to by the generic "Prince N of Country" title. Now, whether or not we approve of such practices, there is generally no other good way of referring to these people. Such titles are the most commonly used names, and whether we use them or not, we are essentially taking a POV. The worst thing we can do is to make up names for people that they themselves never use. And this has nothing to do with whether or not we recognize the validity of the Greek Republic. That's a total red herring. john k 06:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% Rastapopoulos 10:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So do I. Prsgoddess187 11:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree only to the extent that someone actually held such a title at some time. But when it comes to, say, Prince Odysseas Kimon of Greece and Denmark (born in ...2004, like 30 years after the abolition), I raise my eyebrow and think that the editor who named the article is a monarchist... No flame intended.
 * Oh, and something else. It is not true that the only names by which they are known are "king Constantine," "Prince So and So of Greece and Denmark," and so forth. Unless what is true is only what the english-speaking world deems as such, would it not be systemic bias for WP to neglect the fact that virtually all Greeks, apart from a marginal monarchist minority, refer to the former royal family as "Glucksburg"?


 * --Michalis Famelis 14:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * > virtually all Greeks, apart from a marginal monarchist minority, refer to the former royal family as "Glucksburg"?
 * I completely disagree with that. "Glucksburg" is only used by people of a specific political orientation (some leftists and most communists), and is meant to underscore the "fact" that King Constantine has "no Greek blood". In a similar vein, fringe neo-fascists call Papandreou "Mineiko-Chad". Both practices are equally racist. Most educated and non-fanatic Greeks have no hangups about their history, nor do they wake up with cold sweats at the thought of the restoration of monarchy -- parliamentary democracy in Greece is here to stay. Hey, even Stalin respected Russian history and refrained from tearing down statues of the Czars! Rastapopoulos 15:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As one who has been involved in the greek left for some time, I am surprised to read the claim that the greek left uses "Glucksburg" as derogatory. Are you talking seriously? The left that fights against racism, the left that fights for the rights of immigrants, the left that proclaims its internationalism? The KKE, the communist party, doing such a thing? The KKE with its MP, Orestis Kolozof??? Reality check, please... Get up from the chair and hit he streets of Athens. Talk to people and refer to Constantine as Gluksburg, and as King Constantine. You will see that the "king Constantine" will only be accepted as a sarcastic euphemism. On the other hand Glucksburg is the name most people use when trying to talk about the former royal family and not try to make fun of it. Either way, more common than both is to refer to the man as "o Teos" which is even more sarcastic!
 * But, I would have no problem whatsoever to have this article named "Constantine II ...". I would grudge but eventually accept to have "Pavlos, crown prince". What the hell they even held those titles for some time. But I will not agree to a Prince Odysseas Kimon of Greece and Denmark born in 2004, 30 years after the abolition, referred to as "prince of greece".
 * Summary: To say that the use of "Gluksburg" is racist is absurd. The name "glucksburg" should be in the article and it should be noted that it is the name used by the majority of Greeks. There must be a discussion about "royal" grandchildren and children born after 1975.
 * --Michalis Famelis 16:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Michael, are you talking seriously when you say that a leftist can 'ipso facto' not be a racist? That is a POV suitable for a kafeneio, not Wikipedia. Some most virulent racists and anti-semites in Greece (such as Fourakis) belong to the left. So what if KKE has a party cadre called Kolozov? The "right" has had people such as Ebert and Averoff too, what does that prove. For the record, I agree with you that "royal" titles for people born after 1975 hold no water, but I insist that people born with royal titles do hold them for life. Constantine won a Olympic gold medal as Constantine, not as Glucksburg. Should the IOC now stike his name off the records and call him Glucksburg? And one final question, which I urge you to answer with full honesty: do you feel that the using Glucksburg is not in any way meant to stress that Constantine is "not Greek"? Rastapopoulos 07:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will have to admit that I did use "kafeneio" (that is coffee house for non-greek speakers) talk: being a leftist does not de facto avert one from being a racist. (By the way I looked up Ipso facto, and your use of it was not correct. Just a friendly remark here, not trying to be snobbish. I think De facto would be more precise!). I do accept this as a general principle. But, it is most doubtful weather Fourakis (the author of books such as ..."The hate of Jews") can be called a leftist. I do wander whoever classified such people as leftists... Being against the junta does not make one a leftist in itself.. What I am saying is that maybe those "leftists" you claim to be using the name "Glucksburg" to intensify the man's alleged "un-greekness" are not part of the greek left.. Anyway, defending the honour of the greek left has nothing to do with what we are talking about, so I stop this here.
 * So, the issue is weather the use of "Glucksburg" is impolite or racist. In my POV, it is neither. It is not racist, since all the greek politicians whose names you and I mentioned before are well established as greek citizens, along with many more who have a "non-greek" name (such as Terens Quik, Ioanna Kourtovik, the volleyballer Baev, and not even mentioning all those greeks whose names end in the turkish suffix -oglu...). I don't think it is impolite because the name (more correctly the title) "Glucksburg" is part of the family's history. See Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. If you call me "Michalis from Ano Liosia" shoud I be offended? I don't think so... And to respond to your question honestly, no, I don't feel that there is a need to stress anyone's un-greek-ness in any way, by use of name or otherwise. There exist people who do use this name for doing exactly that, I wont't argue on this. But I believe they are as much a marginal minority as are the monarchists in greece.
 * Then we get to the part of deciding how to name this particular WP article. I don't have any objection whatsoever against keeping the current name. The man was the king at some time. But I would argue that the reference in the article that he is also known as "Konstantinos Gluksburg" in Greece, should be kept. The real issue according to my POV, is weather the members of the titular royal family who were never princes or princesses should be refered to as such. By what merit should Marie-Chantal, Princess of Greece and Denmark bee called a princess, since she married Pavlos in 1995? She never was recognized by the Greek state as such... I woould even go so far as proposing that the Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece be renamed Pavlos of Greece. Your argument that those that were born with royal titles should hold them for life is a POV, as much as my argument that Mr Pavlos should get a life and not live in a royal fantasy. But as for a wikipedia guideline on naming titular "royalty" I think there should be more discussion.
 * --Michalis Famelis 14:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, Michali. We are in total agreement that the use of "Princess Marie Chantal of the Hellenes" is quite Pythonesque. I also agree that Wiki should mention that some Greeks (certainly not all -- for example the moderate newspaper Kathimerini does not) call him Mr Glucksburg. On the other hand, Wiki should note that  Mr Glucksburg was never used or acknowledged by Constantine (nor by his anscestors for at least 4 generations!) and that it is a name that has been bestowed upon him a great dose of ridicule and sarcasm (if not crypto-racism). As for retroactively "revoking" his royal title and Greek citizenship (ex post --more latin!), it flies in the face of democratic best practices and international law. And one final provokatsia (to use a leftist expression!)on my behalf: Constantine actively resisted the Junta with two (failed) coutercoups -- 1968 and the Naval mutiny. To me he is as much an antistasiakos  (resistance fighter) as Alekos Panagoulis ever was ;) Rastapopoulos 15:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you only object to Prince Odysseas Kimon? Ought we call him Prince Odysseas Kimon of Denmark?  He is most certainly a Prince of Denmark, but to call him that would be absurd - he is a member of the Greek royal family, and it is just obfuscatory to pretend otherwise. At any rate, what is your opinion on Princess Margarita of Romania, Prince Peter of Yugoslavia, Emanuele Filiberto, Prince of Venice, and so on and so forth. The common practice is to refer to members of ousted royal families by their princely titles, even after the abolition of monarchy in said countries.  There are some exceptions to this.  Notably, members of the Habsburg family who live in Austria, where noble titles have been abolished, generally do not use their titles.  That said, the Greek royal family does not live in Greece, and as such, it doesn't especially matter in terms of article naming what the Greek government refers to them as.  Beyond this, I would agree that the name Glucksburg should be mentioned. I'm not sure what I think of the argument that its usage is racist.  However, it does seem as though its usage is, at the very least, purposefully impolite.  Using "Glucksburg" as the name for the Greek royal family is a purposeful way of showing disrespect for them. We should not use such a name in the article title, though, because the people involved never use those names themselves.  We can't have articles on living people which give them names which they never themselves use.  We give Prince and Madonna the right to call themselves whatever they want.  Our articles on writers, like Mark Twain and George Eliot, are frequently at well known pen names, even though those people actually used their real names in every day life.  The basic fact is that whether or not Odysseas Kimon is a prince of Greece (obviously, in the law of the Hellenic Republic, he is not), he is known as "Prince Odysseas Kimon of Greece and Denmark", or "Odysseas Kimon de Grecia".  And the title is generally used by courtesy in many contexts.  I don't see how we can get around that, even if we disapprove of the Greek royal family. john k 17:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It's also essentially the case that the born-post-1974 members of the former Greek royal family are known by their titles in the English-speaking world. C.f. this channel 4 program, or this wireimage image set, which consistently refers to members of the Greek royal family as "Prince N of Greece"... john k 17:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

100% correct. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 19:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The fact that the english-speaking world frequently uses these titles doesn't quite say anything, as to what an encyclopedia article should be named. It should of course be mentioned in the body of an article, no objections there, but naming the article is different imho. Also, it is not quite analogous to compare artistic nicknames such as Madonna, to nobility titles, because nobility titles carry political meanings in them. If I were entitled to have a say on WP guidelines for how titular princes and princesses should be named, I would argue that the articles of them should be named "X of Y" without the use of "prince/ess" in the article name, and mentioning the fact that some people still regard them or call them by a title in the article main body. I would also argue that templates such as this:


 * should not be included in articles of "royalty" that were never officially such, such as the article on Marie-Chantal, Princess of Greece and Denmark. What the hell, dear Phillipos above was born in 1986... Only his household employees and his royalty friends call him that... It is absurd if you think about it: if the guy X demanded that his friends refer to him as "your coolness", should WP add a template in the article about him as the above? I would really like to hear your views on this.
 * --Michalis Famelis 14:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The templates might, perhaps, be removed. However, there is still no other place to put prince Philippos save at Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark. And, in fact, the fact that this is the term used in the English speaking world is significant, because Wikipedia's article naming policy is based on "most common usage." john k 16:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As this is how they are known officially in Denmark, could we possibly put that in the template. Then we are not giving it a POV, we are stating how they are known by the Danish Government. Prsgoddess187 18:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Denmark officially recognizes them as princes and princesses does complicate matters a bit. As a possible solution I could propose, for instance about Phillipos, that the article be named Phillipos of Greece, Prince of Denmark. What do you think? It takes into account that he is most widely known as "of Greece" (or deGrecia if you like), and that he is recognized as a prince in Denmark. I cannot understand though why the title must be in the article name.

There are articles such as Alexandra Georgievna of Greece, Sophia of Prussia, Elena of Greece, Elisabeth of Romania, Frederika of Hanover, Alexandra of Greece. Are these examples of bad style or is there something else the matter? The aformentioned articles do not use the nobility title (which some of the above actually did hold) at their article title. Could this not be used as a guideline for naming articles on titular nobility? --Michalis Famelis 23:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You obviously aren't aware either of WP naming conventions or of standard biographical references to deceased consorts. Deceased consorts of monarchs are referred to in that form. Phillipos is not the deceased wife of a king so the above is irrelevant. Re Phillipos of Greece, Prince of Denmark, that is not an option. Under standard encyclopædic rules, as the son of the exiled King of Greece, Phillipos is referred to as Prince Phillipos of Greece or of Greece and Denmark. No other form is valid under standard biographical naming. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 00:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, you are right. I was not aware of WP naming conventions. So I sat down and read Naming conventions (names and titles). And the case of, say Phillipos (poor dude, I've been using his name so much recently he must have itches), as I understand it falls in the jurisdiction of rule 6 of the "Monarchical Titles" section, that is the rule about pretenders. The phrase "a pretender, i.e., someone who has not reigned" can be interpreted as someone who was born in a family that was no longer a reigning family, which he was. And as he was born in such a family he never "got" the title prince from anyone, as nobility titles are "given" by states, not by one's dad. So the part that says "A person may however be referred to if they have a title" is null in this case. He doesn't have the title, he pretends he does, he is a pretender, as inferred from above. So, again, what do you think of "Phillipos of Greece" as a proposal?
 * --Michalis Famelis 03:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand. States don't grant monarchical titles. Monarchs do. But monarchs do so with state authority. It is a two-fold process. However titles like prince and princess are different. Each member of a royal family is not given the title prince or princess. They do so by being born the son or daughter of a prince (not princess, BTW, in most states.) General precedent in both republics and monarchies if that such hereditary titles are presumed to carry on even if a monarchy is abolished. New titles cannot be created (or if attempted have no legal standing) but existing hereditary ones are treated as continuing. When Chancellor Kohl met the pretender to the German throne, for example, he referred to him as Prince Louis Ferdinand and called him "Royal Highness" even though the German monarchy was abolished back in the time of Louis Ferdinand's grandfather. (I think from memory that Kaiser Wilhelm II was his grandfather.) Similarly the crown prince of the defunct throne of Italy, can be called Prince of Naples but he could never be called Prince of Piedmont because his father, Umberto II, never awarded him the title while on the throne and could not do so after the monarchy's abolition. So unless the Italian monarchy is recreated (unlikely, since the House of Savoy is regarded as an embarrassing bunch of egotistical misfits even by many Italian royalists) there never will be another Prince of Piedmont. But there will be generations of Italian princes, who are so because they are born to a prince who was born to a prince who was. ..

Similarly if the British monarchy was abolished tomorrow, there never would be another Prince of Wales, as Prince of Wales is a creation and could not be done by a non-reigning monarch. But there would be other Dukes of Cornwall because that is a hereditary title that continues and does not have to be recreated.

Phillipos is a prince because his father was a king. His children in turn will be a prince. However he will never be able to be given a title by his father because his father lost the legal ability to do that in 1973 when the monarchy was abolished. The issue is simply that the Greek government tried, contrary to international tradition, to say that all hereditary princely titles are abolished too. Legally governments can't do that as a princedom is a matter of inheritance, not creation, and carries with it no legal rights in the absence of a monarchy. The French government in the nineteenth century also tried to unilaterally abolish royal titles. The response of the worldwide community to them, and to the Greeks, was the same: "oi. You cannot do that. We all follow the same set of rules on this. No one state can try to change them." So while France in the 19th century and Greece in the late twentieth century went ballistic over it, the world still called the descendants of French royals and of Napoleon Prince and still calls the kids of the exiled Greek king Prince and Princess. Eventually France shup up about its attempt to abolish French titles and quietly accepted they did exist and could continue to exist.

All Wikipedia does is follow the same definitions as the rest of the world: prince is an inherited title held by the son of a prince. The Prince's children are called Princess. To ignore world usage and follow the usage of one government (followed for politically motived reasons) would be POV. To follow the same rules as everyone else is standard. We are not the puppets of individual governments but simply follow standard international usage here as on other things. Governments come and go. International law and conventions tends to be more steady and continuous and less motivated by current political opportunism or the agendas of individual politicians or governments. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In the light of your last comment I drop my case. I only kindly request that if this a wikipedia guideline, that is if to accept this international custom, please point me to that guideline. Apart from that i will leave a message on your talk page as the above analysis raises some theoretical questions that are not of direct application to this article. -- Michalis Famelis 00:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)