Talk:George III of Guria

Untitled
I must admit medieval Georgian history is not an issue I know much about, but as far as I can make out Imereti was the larger and more important state than Guria. So surely those who were monarchs of both, their Imeretian number takes priority. Length of reign may not clinch it, James I of England is usually known as such, even though he was king of Scotland for considerably longer. PatGallacher (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point, but since the guy was primarily associated with the principality of Guria, "of Guria" seems to be a better title. According to Naming conventions (royalty and nobility): "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; Philip II of Spain, not Philip I of Portugal, although there should be redirects from these locations. When several states are so associated, it is proper and often desirable to give the others compensating prominence in the introduction of the article." --KoberTalk 17:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)