Talk:Dynasty

East Asian Dynasties Edit
intranetusa

I've added more Asian dynasties - China and Japan, and includes the complete list of all the Chinese dynasties.

China
the head of dynasty is the one in waht you learn but know that it has somthing to do with government
 * Shang Dynasty (1766 BCE–1050 BCE)
 * Zhou Dynasty (1122 BCE–256 BCE)
 * Qin Dynasty (221 BCE–206 BCE)
 * Han Dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE)
 * Three Kingdoms (220 CE–280 CE)
 * Jin Dynasty (265 CE–420 CE)
 * Southern & Northern Dynasty (420CE–589 CE)
 * Sui Dynasty (581 CE–618 CE)
 * Tang Dynasty (618 CE–907 CE)
 * Song Dynasty (960 CE–1279 CE)
 * Yuan Dynasty (1271 CE–1368 CE)
 * Song Dynasty (1368 CE–1644 CE)
 * Qing Dynasty (1644 CE–1912 CE)

Japan

 * Japanese Dynasty (400-500 CE-present)

-intranetusa

Chinese dynasties?
They have so many dynasties, and none of them are listed? Insert non-formatted text here

North Korea
I have deleted the following since the same is repeated in "Political families".

"The Heads of State of modern North Korea also works on de facto dynastic succession. The late Kim Il-Sung was succeeded by his eldest son Kim Jong-Il, and Kim Jong-Il will most certainly be succeeded by one of his own sons".

Other reasons for deletion:

1) The entry sounded like anti-North Korean propaganda. And while many of us may not like North Korea, propaganda is still propaganda, even if it sounds pretty to our ears. 2) The entry contained an unprovable supposition. 3) There is no mention about things like this in other countries' sections (like Syria). Ri hwa won 20:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"democracies"?
Why are the Kims and the Assads under a section-header "Dynasties in democracies"? AnonMoos 14:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Because this is an article about Dynasties. Not a paper for political opinion.


 * What is labelling their countries "democracies" but a political opinion? LE (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Could refer to them as ostensible democracies, but it would probably be good to find a more neutral way to phrase it. 98.179.184.17 (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Sports dynasty section
I really don't like this. It's inherently POV. It's something sportwriters argue about all the time. How can it work on Wikipedia? – flamurai (t) 09:51, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. Plus except for some sports fanatics nobody will be interested in that kind of interpretation. If people want to keep it, let's move it to Dynasty_(sports) and let them fight it out there. Actually, this page needs a lot of work in general -- have a look at for example the German version of this page for an example of what a page on dynasties should look like (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynastie). --CPK 03:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

European dynasties --> ass backwards?
The material on European dynasties seems to me to be organized in a not very useful way. Given that so many European dynasties ruled over many different countries, and given that the list of dynasties in each country separately is already to be found at the individual List of monarchs pages, I wonder if it might not be better to list all the different European dynasties together, and note the various specific places they ruled. Sub-branches could be indicated through use of indenting. john k 19:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I also saw that a lot of important european dynasties are missing because its members didnt gained royal or imperial status but only ducal or county, nontheless were very influential in european politics. For example: Anjou, Borja, etc. I think that the article, at least for europe, should classify dinasties by status IMPERIAL, then wich empire; Royal ..then the realm/country, ducal and county. LEANDRO

heres an article on the eyres thats really recent, LOTS of info, lol. got to the part about lroy heller w/the teacher and RAOTFLMAO. it shuldnt be funny but it is



Incomplete Asia
What about Japanese and Chinese Dynasties?

Roughly 4,500 years of Iran/ Persian Empires have been overlooked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.136.29 (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Angelus dynasty
The link for the Byzantine Angelus / Angelos dynasty went to "Angelus" which takes you to an article on the Catholic prayer of that name. I checked the disambiguation and there is a reference to the Angelus dynasty but it's linked to "Angeloi" which redirects right back to the prayer article. I changed the link in this article to "Angelus (dynasty)", which makes it a orphan link for now. As far as I can tell there's no existing article on the Angelus dynasty. I put the name in the Latin form instead of the Greek in order to keep consistent with the other Byzantine dynasty links in this article. I'll make the same edit at the "Angelus" disambiguation page. --Kenji Yamada 09:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Time for separate article?
Isn't it time for the ever-increasing families enumerated in this article to be forked off into List of dynasties or some such, that matches & can be linked to the various Rulers and Succession lists? Lethiere 02:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Scotland
Why does Scotland's House only go to 1707 but England's goes to the present day? They both have had the same House since 1603. The royal house for England and Scotland should stop at 1707 and then a new country Great Britain 1707-1801 should be listed and then 1801-Present it should be U.K. royal Houses. This must be corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.206.157.242 (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC).


 * A agree, the title should be changed to United kingdom and have a sub title as England and Scotland, escpecially as James I was the scottish king taking over the English Throne not the other way round. 81.77.48.253 (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Party dynasties
Do we have an article that covers party dynasties in electoral politics. I'm thinking here of Japan's Liberal Democratcs, Sweden's Social Democrats, and regional dynasties like the Democracts in the American south from the ACW to the 1960s. Would it fit in this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevlar67 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Categories
Is there any particular reason why this article is only in two categories? Olessi 18:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia been added
Assalamu Aleikum, i've added in Asian section:

Saudi Arabia

 * House of Saud

Britain
The article states that during Elizabeth's death, the new ruling house will be Mountbatten-Windsor. However, that article states Mountbatten-Windsor is only a surname to be used by descendants of Elizabeth and Philip who are not in line for the throne, and specifically states that the House will continue to be Windsor. Which of these statements is true? There doesn't seem to be any evidence given for changing the name of the House, so it appears this article is incorrect. K.d.stauffer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
The article Royal House consists of information and lists substantially similar to or compatible with those in this article, Dynasty. Since this article appears to be more extensive, I recommend that Royal House be merged into it. FactStraight (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But dynasties and royal houses are not the same. Whilst every royal house is a dynasty not every dynasty is a royal house. --Cameron* 10:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A fact which can easily be pointed out in the merged article, as it is in the current articles. In ordinary discourse, "royal" is now used to refer to anyone or anything connected to hereditary monarchy -- most people consider the Grand Dukes of Luxembourg and their family to be "royalty", notwithstanding lack of entitlement to the title of "king/queen".FactStraight (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ... Which is to say, there will be, at least in effect conceptually, a section Dynasty? In any case, excuse me if i am flaunting my ignorance (and flouting the truth) but my impression was that a dynasty ended when a different royal house took the throne, while royal houses persisted, and flitted from throne to throne, each time adding a new dynasty to their family history. Perhaps i'm a clueless republican.  --Jerzy•t 18:43 & 18:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no difference in the meaning of "royal house" and "dynasty" in the example you cite: you could switch the two terms and the sentences would be as accurate/inaccurate as before. The only difference between the two terms is that "royal house" is used (in contrast to, e.g. "imperial house" or "grand ducal house") to refer, strictly, to a family of rulers whose head bears the official title of king/queen. A "dynasty" refers, more broadly, to any family which reigns by hereditary right, regardless of whether its head is emperor, king, grand duke, duke, prince, count, or lord. In practice, nowadays it is common to refer to members of any hereditary ruling family as "royalty" or "royals": Google turns up 3,040 hits for "Monaco's royal family" and only eight for "Monaco's princely family", although technically the first term is incorrect and the second is correct. "Dynasty" avoids this problem. FactStraight (talk) 07:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jerzy phrased his sentence incorrectly. "A dinasty ended when a different royal house took the throne" is incorrect, it should be "A dinasty ended ruling a certain royal house when a different dinasty took the throne of that royal house". Additionally, a royal house usually bears the name of the ruled territory and can span several dinasties, and a dinasty can rule one or more royal houses along time. That includes the case of one dinasty being a member of several royal houses simultaneously, either when members of the same dinasty getting to be kings of several different countries, or when several royal titles come to be in possesion of one person. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, the Royal House of Egypt was ruled by 30 dinasties, 31 if you count the Thirty-first dynasty of Egypt. See a scholar source talking about the twelveth dinasty, and a macedonian general at the orders of Alexander the Great refounding the Royal House despite not being related by blood to past governants --Enric Naval (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In European history, dynasties didn't rule "royal houses", they ruled countries -- exactly as did "royal houses". "The royal house of Egypt" was not ruled by 30 dynasties, Egypt was ruled by 31 (different) dynasties, some of which were presumably branches of one another, but were referred to as if a new family came to occupy the throne. There is still no evidence that "royal house" is anything but a subset of "dynasty". FactStraight (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I Think It Shold Be Merged --70.100.142.209 (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

how can explain a story of dunasty diamond jewelry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.237.74 (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Time for separate article?
This was suggested earlier and should now be re-considered: Isn't it time for the ever-increasing families enumerated in this article to be forked off into List of dynasties or some such, that matches & can be linked to the various Rulers and Succession lists? FactStraight (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

basic concepts about dynasty
The dangers of disputed succession were best avoided by hereditary succession: ruling families had a natural interest in passing on to their descendants enhanced power and prestige.

Dynasty is, generally, understood as a lineage of hereditary succession to an essentially same position (usually, monarchy). Family members follow one another to the position, according to rules of their dynasty.

Sometimes, dynasty is regarded to have changed because an epoch ended and another started, despite of strict genealogy that the later "dynasty" actually are heirs of the earlier "dynasty" (and thus could alternatively be held as one dynasty only). This sort of change usually happens only somewhat later in historiography, and was not a proclamation of the monarch. Quite often, such a change is based on some major upheaval in the country's history. Or an upheaval in the history of the genealogical lineage - such as, the genealogical lineage rises to throne of another place. In this way, dynasty may better denote an epoch than a genealogical line. The term is also used to describe the era during which a family reigned, as well as events, trends and artifacts of that period (e.g. "Ming dynasty vase"). In such cases, often the "dynasty" is dropped, but the name may be used adjectively, e.g. "Tudor style", "Ottoman expansion", "Romanov decadence", etc.

A ruling or territorial dynasty is also often called a "house" (e.g. "House of Saud", "House of Windsor)". In much of the world, dynasties have been defined patrilineally, with inheritance and kinship being predominantly viewed and legally calculated through descent from a common ancestor in the male line. Houses are also genealogical concepts of hereditary nobility. The patrilineality is prevalent with that term. A difference between Houses and Dynasties is that dynasty may continue via a female, as long as it is in accordance with their succession rules; while the term "House" (which is largely of indoeuropean usage) has patrilineality generally as its conceptual basis and limit. If another patriline later assumes (or inherits) the name of an earlier House, it usually is referred to as the new House of that name. (compare: the House of Lusignan - the new House of Lusignan, reigning over the kingdom of Cyprus; House of habsburg - House of Habsburg-Lorraine) Men who were descended from extinct dynasties through their mothers or grandmothers have sometimes adopted the name of the extinct dynasty in order to claim inheritance (e.g. House of Orange, Bagrationi dynasty, House of Habsburg-Lorraine). 82.181.234.211 (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

UK Discontinuity
Why is the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha shown as ending in 1910, and the House of Windsor not starting until 1921? In fact the name change was in 1917. Rojomoke (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and the House of Windsor is in fact a branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. I.e, the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha still reigns in the UK and will reign until the Queen's death. Surtsicna (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Dutch Bonaparte
I wonder why the Bonaparte Dynasty isn't named in 'The Netherlands' section. Louis (Lodewijk) Napoleon ruled the Netherlands as king for a few years and his son (second) was Louis II for a couple of days. The Bonaparte Family is named in the Spain section (besides the french), so it's not the short time period... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.215.20.224 (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Stuart dynasty pic at top of page
The caption of the pic on this page identifies the two figures in the picture as King James II and King Charles II, and identifies the latter as the father of the former. In fact that picture is of King James II and King Charles I, who was actually the father of James. The page for the picture itself even confirms this. Deusveritasest (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Merging Royal House with Dynasty
The content of the Royal House page is essentially a less well written and badly sourced version of the Dynasty page. 'Dynasty' and 'Royal House' seem to me to be synonyms. Any input would be great. Sotakeit (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur. I recommended that the two articles be merged in 2008 and 2010 (see sections above]]), and I still support such a merger, for the grounds given above. FactStraight (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Merged. Sotakeit (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It would however be good to have some terminological distinction between the strict genealogical definition (based on male-line descent) and the names used for political reasons (whether changing name when descent has not changed such as Saxe-Coburg-Gotha being renamed Windsor, or a popular name being retained despite different agnatic ancestry as with the retention of Orange-Nassau). The UK has had many dynasties holding by right of descent from William the Conqueror that amount to one hereditary continuity, while various nations have had coups by unrelated families displacing those that reigned before and such differences should also be somehow marked. LE (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

A question about the etymology of "dynasty"
As the article says, dynasty originates in an ancient greek word meaning power or the like. Other dyn-words like dynamo, dynamite and the old unit of force (physics) dyn (or dyne?) in the (may-be not international, at least used in F) unit system C.G.S. confirm this aspect of the etymology. But can someone tell me why the idea of a family (of rulers) is contained (as an essential part) in the meaning of dynasty? --UKe-CH (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216125714/http://www.cultural-china.com/chinaWH/html/en/History1766bye3553.html to http://www.cultural-china.com/chinaWH/html/en/History1766bye3553.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is Ireland listed twice?
Once under Europe and once under British Isles. Can't these be merged? LE (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hungarian "Árpád-ház" (House of Árpád) dynasty seems to be missing
The House of Árpád ruled Hungary from 858 AC to 1301 AC, for 443 years. Is there some specific reason why this dynasty is not listed here? For reference, pls see https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d-h%C3%A1z with a good timeline chart, or in English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d_dynasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tupillária (talk • contribs) 09:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have just added Árpád dynasty to the table! NagyPóc (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The result of the discussion was no consensus to merge. There were too few comments, and everyone opposed the merge.

I propose merging Political family into Dynasty. I think the content in Political family can easily be explained in the context of Dynasty, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Dynasty. Thenightaway (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. While related, they are distinct concepts. eduardog3000 (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think of the two as very distinct things. A dynasty controls a country as the unitary head of state (or in constitutional status), while a political family may just be one influential part of a country's or region's multipolar political landscape.  There can be many political families operating in the same place at the same time, but only one dynasty can rule a country / empire / what-have-you at a time. Denzera (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Dynasty primarily refers to a succession of monarchs of the same family: while the term is used as a metaphor for political families in democratic countries, they are not the same. Compare, for example, terms like 'kingmaker' or 'consigliere' - a page by that name might have a sentence or two acknowledging the related use of the term, but would need to focus primarily on its primary meaning. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Chola dynasty
How can the Chola Dynasty be simultaneously an example of both an area which is divided into many dynasties (like Egypt, Iran, and China) and a single dynasty that ranks as one of the longest lasting of all time, as the article currently claims? Furius (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Is a Hereditary dictatorship any different to an absolute Monarchy?
Is a hereditary dictatorship any different to an Absolute Monarchy? Mztourist (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Capetians vs Robertians ?
Shouldn't we count the Robertians and the capetians as the same thing, The Capetians are agnatic descendents of the Robertians, I know they're not usually not referred by the same name, but thats also true of dynasties counted as capetians : Valois, Bourbons, etc, they are still counted, and while later capetian kings would use that term to refer to themselves, this was not true of the early capetians, only seeing themselves as a continuation of the Robertians, the term capetian in itself only appeared later, so should we add the Robertian dynasty's reigns to the ones of the Capetians. The basque savior (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)