Talk:Pretender/Archive 2

Title of this article and overall use of the term in Wikimedia
I feel that the title ‘Pretenders’ is discriminatory against the role of monarchs and should not be used throughout Wikipedia and Wikimedia for that matter. A much more appropriate identity to monarchs who have lost their thrones is ‘Displaced Monarchs’ or ‘Displaced Monarchies’. The current terminology for these people has a harsh bias in it by calling them ‘pretenders’! the word pretend means fake, untrue and alike identities; these people are not fake or untrue, they are still high-class, have high-social status, and are important figures and merely do not have the power they or their ancestors once had in politics. Pretenders should only apply to those who are what the word implies: people who are fake monarchs, who may even lay claim to being a certain known monarch. An example of this is Anna Anderson, who was one of several persons who claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia. Vadac (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "pretender" is NOT based on the English word "pretend." It is based on the Latin verb "pretendere," (I wrote it in its infinitive form in case it matters), which literally means "to stretch out or spread (something) before one." In the case of any kind of office, it is taken somewhat figuratively to mean "to lay claim." While it can also mean "to allege in excuse," that is not its only meaning nor its meaning in the context of offices. So, it's not that these people are necessarily fake. It's just that they're making a claim, even if that claim does hold water so to speak. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretenders in the British Isles
Identifying “valid” or “true” pretenders to the thrones of the historic jurisdictions in the British Isles presents certain problems that make it impossible to accurately list individual pretenders in the tabular section of the article – simply because there are too many people with a valid, or potentially valid claim of pretender status.

In a nutshell, the nature of national consolidation in the British Isles – at its zenith, 1801 – 1922, when all but the Faeroes were part of one nation-state (discounting the forced temporary unification under Cromwell); the incredible number of royal clans and families (especially in Ireland); the historic number of realms; the historic nature of Gaelic, Picto-Gaelic, Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Norman, and other traditions of kingship; and the well documented (orally or literally) histories of the foregoing – all of these factors together make it impossible to identify any one pretender.

Basically, whether a pretender is a valid pretender depends upon the specific historic jurisdiction and whether its conquest and/or consolidation to other jurisdictions over time is or was accepted as valid.

For example, there is a Jacobite pretender to the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland. But historically, most Irish people have regarded the Anglo-Norman takeover of Ireland as legally invalid. There are living representatives of all the royal Irish houses who were constantly warring over rights to the High Kingship of Ireland at the time of the arguably illegal English take-over in 1171. O’Conor Don is the one most commonly touted pretender to the Irish throne, and was effectively recognised as such in the Treaty of Windsor. But the validity of the treaty, of course, is called into question by the descendants of other royal houses, especially the very numerous branches of the huge and once hugely powerful Ui Niall Dynasty – among many others.

Then there is the question whether Malcolm III Canmore’s accession to the Scottish High Kingship was lawful – ultimately as the culmination of the battles between the two sides of the same Picto-Scottish royal family, the House of Atholl and the House of Moray (whose conflict would take English form in the Wars of the Roses a few centuries later – again, with different sides of the same royal family pitted against each other). Certainly Malcolm III’s succession was not according to established Picto-Gaelic tradition; but that doesn’t matter much when you’ve got the muscle to take what you want, and Canmore was supported by England.

With the murder of High King Lulach, his grandson – founder of the Clan Mackay – became a pretender to the high throne, and his modern descendants (owing to the nature of kingly selection at the time of the dispute) may be considered valid pretenders today. To be sure, they cannot be considered ‘’in’’valid pretenders without making a value judgment on the historic validity of the constitution of medieval Picto-Gaelic tribal nation.

To wit, when in time does status as a pretender end? After a year? Ten years? A hundred years? A thousand?

So, if one contest the validity of the Stewart/Stuart accession through Princess Marjory and the Steward Walter, as some continue to do, the validity of any Jacobite heir as pretender to the Scottish throne is called into question.

If there is no valid Jacobite pretender to the throne of Scotland, then there can be no valid Jacobite pretender to the thrones of England or Ireland, nor to the Dukedom of Normandy (Jersey and Guernsey being all that’s left of it), nor the feifdom of Man, etc.

But insomuch as Ireland main is a republic and UK and its predecessor realms in interest has had a purely statutory monarchy for several centuries, I am inclined to recognise the validity of pretender status for all people who have linear claims of descent to the last monarch through whom pretender status is claim, with broad application of the general tradition in effect at the time.

With that in mind – and given the impossibility to identify any one pretender to any one of the historic thrones in the British Isles – I have revised the pertinent table entry to direct readers to the pertinent substantive section of the article. I suggest that any known pretenders who might be specifically identified be so identified there instead of in the table above, to avoid inaccuracy and confusion.

209.247.23.141 16:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Dom Rosario Poidimani, again
Please stop the revert battle (this is addressed to both sides). It's really not that important either way. Just as one side is pushing it's candidate as a "real" pretender, so the other side is trying to bury this man as a "fake" pretender. If he is important enough to list in this article in either way, then why was he not important enough to have his own article? His article (admittedly entirely POV) was deleted January 24, 2006, and again February 26, 2006. I would be willing to try to start an NPOV article on him if I could get some agreement from other parties not to move for deletion (I think that I did a rather good job of removing the POV from the Hilda Toledano article - with the exception of the article name which I will tackle some day when things are calmer). Noel S McFerran 12:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ok Mr McFerran, in this page there is a continue libel against this pretender. I hope you can create an impartial and neutral article about Rosario as in the your very good work of the Maria Pia, Duarte Nuno and Duarte Pio articles. I think is correct and legitimate insert in Maria Pia page her real name, Maria Pia de Bragança e Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha ( http://www.thepeerage.com/p9164.htm#i91639 ) because Hilda Toledano was only a pseudonym and in that wikipedia page we tell about her claims as portugese pretender. I think is very important also this documentation in portuguese language ( http://duarteotretas.blogspot.com/ ). I hope this can be useful for you. Best regards User:82.52.180.225  18:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Three days ago I requested a halt to the revert battle - to no avail. Now I see that two administrators are participating in this revert battle, one on each side.  This is ridiculous.  This page (like lots of Wiki-pages) needs all kinds of attention paid to it to improve it.  The changes back and forth are just a waster of editor-time. Noel S McFerran 17:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There is in this page continuous libel against the portuguese pretender Rosario Poidimani (http://amt.no.sapo.pt/novaversao/pretendentes/ipretendentes.htm ). The miguelist supporters continue with this libel that Rosario is a false pretender. For many royalists in Portugal, Rosario is the unique legitimate Duke of Braganza. He became Duke of Braganza when Maria Pia of Braganza, the daughter of the king Charles of Portugal, abdicated in favour of him. Maria Pia was daughter of the king and the name of the king is reported in her all official documents and there was also a document in her baptisimal documents, Documento Unido, http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/media/docs/dichiarazioni/ricon-paternita.jpg, where the king attributed, to his beloved daughter, all the honours, privileges, and rights of the Infants of Portugal. The Sacra Rota Romana decided with a definitive sentence to not delete these Maria Pia baptisimal documents where the king is reported as her father. So Maria Pia is a legitimate portuguese pretender and also her heir dom Rosario Poidimani.

The unique false pretender for other royalists in Portugal ( the supporters of Rosario and also for the supporters of the Duke of Lulè) is Duarte Pio of Braganza. He is a direct descendant of the usurper Miguel forever excluded from succession. Miguel lost all his civil and dynastic rights after the Banishment Law for will of the King of Portugal and Cortes. He become a common plebeian after this Banishment. So also his descendants are all no portuguese born and so also for this they are excluded from the succession. So, in particular, I don’t understand how is possible define Duarte Pio as duke of Braganza and so I repropose these questions: How is possible now the miguelist rapresentatives declare them as legitimate Duke of Braganza as successor of the usurper king Miguel forever excluded from the succession by the last monarchic Constitution and after the Banishment Law lost all his civil and dynastic rights and so become a common plebeian for the incontrovertible will of the Cortes and the King of Portugal? Who grant them this title? The Banishment Law was in force untill the 1950 (so these miguelist remained always plebeian and foreign, and no portuguese constitutional king granted them any title), when their "friend" Salazar decided to eliminate this banishment and supported this branch...a dictator that support a claimant to the throne...a portuguese republic interested in portuguese monarchy,as now...a true funny story...but the unique way for "legitimate" this Usurper branch is only the help of the republican political power because they have no lawful and republican rights! At the contrary Maria Pia supported the portuguese anti salazarist party of the general Humberto Delgado. She was considered from all as pretender so I don’t understand why in this encyclopedia continue to libel her heir that have also support of many portuguese royalists. This is possible to see in all monarchic portuguese forum!!! So stop to continue to libel against this pretender Rosario only in order to hide his claim and his constitutional branch! Instead McFerran is well thata also the admistrator know this situation to continue libel and attack against Rosario as in fascist period where the liberty of expression don't exist. Fortunately there are administrator that understand this sad situation and help for a democratic knowledge of the truth.

With his latest revert today Charles says "This *must* stop. Someone please protect this page again." If people want the revert battle to stop, then EITHER SIDE can do so. I'm not surprised by the behaviour of one side, but I am surprised that it has been matched by the other side. Why do some people feel that it is so absolutely necessary to include on the list of "Impostor pretenders" somebody who doesn't even have a Wiki-article? This is by no means a comprehensive list of impostor pretenders, so why not leave it off (at least for now)? I think that I know the answer: this has turned into a personal battle between editors; that's just not productive. Recently when another editor made (in my opinion) an absolute hash of an article which I had worked very hard on, I walked away when I discovered that the individual couldn't engage in scholarly discussion about the issue. At some point, I'll go back and tidy up the mess. Noel S McFerran 22:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as Poidimani isn't listed in the main list, I see little reason to have him listed at all. He's a joke, and any listing of him gives him credibility. john k 02:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The only joke here is hide all the usurpations of Duarte Pio in order to legitimate his claims. Insert here D.Rosario as fake pretender is only a big libel. I think to advise D.Rosario in order to begin a criminal action against the responsible of this continue libel against him. Is a big sadness to see the attempt of some users against this pretender and his supporters in order to legitimate the other pretender.I am a portuguese royalist that don't recognize Duarte Pio as Duke of Braganza because he is firstly not born portuguese but in particular because he is a descedant of the usurper king Miguel, forever excluded from succession and became plebeian, as all his descendants, after the Banishment Law. Who king granted to Duarte parents the title of Duke of Braganza? NO King. So why he defines him duke of Braganza if he is not? This is a usurpartion of title and I don't understand because is defended in wikipedia 82.48.224.24 11:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever the legitimacy of the pretensions of Duarte Pio, the pretensions of Mr. Poidimani are obviously ridiculous. On the one hand, Duarte Pio is supposedly excluded because the old monarchical constitution of Portugal excludes his family.  But the old monarchical constitution of Portugal equally excludes any illegitimate children of King Carlos from ever having any claim to the throne, even if we accept Maria Pia's claim to being the daughter of King Carlos.  It would even more so exclude "Dom Rosario", who is not related to the Portuguese royal family at all, and is not Portuguese.  On the one hand, you say that King Manuel's reconciliation with the Miguelist branch and recognition of Duarte Nuño as his heir is illegitimate.  On the other hand, Maria Pia's "adoption" of Dom Rosario makes him the heir?  This is completely intellectually incoherent.  If we accept both the proscription of the Miguelists and the requirement of a Portuguese monarch seriously, as well as the standard idea that all dynasts must be legitimate, then we find that the Duke of Loula, as the senior Portuguese descendant of John VI (outside of the Miguelist line) is the heir.  Certainly Dom Rosario, having no blood relationship whatsoever to the Braganzas, has no claim.  P.S. Go away, and quit making legal threats. john k 11:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The pretension of Rosario are ridiculous only if a person as you don't know the true history of the Royal House of Portugal. As you affirm is true the miguelist branch are perpetually excluded from succession by the last monarchic constitution. At the contrary Maria Pia also as illegitimate daughter of the king was legitimized with a document of the king Charles that affirmed about Maria Pia "she may be called by my name and enjoy from now on the use of this name with the honours, prerogatives, rank, obligations and advantages of the princes of the House of Bragança of Portugal". The Sacred Roman Rota, the normal appeal court for the Roman Catholic Church, issued no modification in Maria Pia baptisimal documents so this document of the king is valid and have legal value. Others are only talk but the true history is based only on official documents as this. At the contrary no king granted to the miguelist branch the title of Duke of Braganza and after the Banisment Law these miguelist became plebeians. How is possible now Duarte Pio affirm him as Duke of Braganza if his father and grandfathere were plebeians? Duarte also born out of portuguese territory (in Swiss territory) and not in portuguese embassy as the Conservatória dos Registos Centrais confirmed and also for this Duarte is in the same situation of the italian Rosario. After there are no proof of the pacts of Dover and Paris with the sign of the king Manuel, in really these are only dream documents in the mind of some miguelists. Yes, the Maria Pia adoption of Dom Rosario can make him heir, as the ancient Latin law issued " qui filius non est, pro filio habetur " and you can see confirmed this principle also in the book " Previlégios da nobreza Portuguesa" ( Privileges of the Portuguese nobility). Rosario is certainly the rightfull Duke of Braganza and the pretender of the Saxe Coburg Braganza branch, the unique legitimate branch of the Royal House of Portugal. Insert here Rosario as a fake pretender is only a big and true libel!!! Justiceiro 11:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. Illegitimate children don't inherit.  And there's no actual evidence of any of these legitimizing documents by King Carlos that you claim.  Under the monarchical constitution, whose terms are the only basis for excluding the Miguelist branch, there is no provision which would allow the king to unilaterally and secretly put his illegitimate child in line for the throne.  Even if there was, there would certainly be no provision for the head of house to just unilaterally appoint someone not even related to him.  And, again, if Maria Pia could choose Dom Rosario, who is not related in the slightest to the House of Braganza, as her heir, then why on earth couldn't Manuel II choose the Duke of Braganza as his heir?  Your arguments are nonsense, and ridiculous.  Rosario.  The only person who can claim the throne as the "constitutionalist pretender" is the Duke of Loula.  Go away. john k 13:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The only person who can claim the throne as the "constitutionalist pretender" can be the Duke of Loulè if Maria Pia of Braganza did not exist and if the Sacred Roman Rota did not issued the validity of the baptisimal Maria Pia document with also the legitimation of Maria Pia pretension. After the 1932 with th edeath of the king Manuel according to the principle of the "immediate succession" immediatly the half-sister Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza became Duchess of Braganza and heir of the Saxe Coburg Braganza branch. The king Manuel II never choose Duarte Nuno as heir. The King never signed a document where he choose the miguelist pretender as Duke of Braganza and none see this hypotetical document because it don't exist. Go away you if you don't debate here. See this page [ http://monarquia.actifforum.com/ftopic38.DUARTE-BRAGANCA-O-GRANDE-TRETAS.htm ] against the fake Duke of Braganza Duarte Pio and please reply how is possible affirm as legitimate Duke of Braganza this person. Duarte Pio of Braganza is the true fake Duke of Braganza Justiceiro 22:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Under the constitution, illegitimate children had no succession rights, and the king could not unilaterally declare an illegitimate child to be legitimate for succession purposes. So even ignoring the fact that there is absolutely no real evidence that Maria Pia was Carlos's daughter, and certainly none that Carlos legitimized her, it doesn't even matter.  Because even if everything she claims is true, she still wouldn't be the heir, because her parents weren't married, and her father was married to another woman.  She wasn't in line for the throne under the Portuguese constitution, and the king isn't allowed to just unilaterally put his bastard children into the line of succession.  The Duke of Loula is the heir under the 19th century constitution, but does not assert his claims.  The Duke of Braganza is the heir under the traditional constitution, and the heir accepted by actual Portuguese monarchists.  Maria Pia was an impostor with an absurd claim, and Rosario is an impostor with a doubly absurd claim.  It's ridiculous that supporters of a supposed "constitutionalist" candidate can only defend her candidacy on the grounds of the King unilaterally, arbitrarily, and secretly changing the succession law.  john k 22:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * When did this article change from Pretender to Legitimate Pretenders? When did Wikipedia become the arbiter of the validity of claims to non-existent (or extant) crowns? From the point of view of current regimes and the vast majority of their citizens, all pretenders are illegitimate, contemptuous of law, and absurd to the extent that they seek to assert a "right" to rule others based on obsolete mandates. I don't find the Poidimani assertions any less valid, any more obscure, any more fantastical, or any more revisionist history than the claim that the Duke of Braganza is Portugal's "rightful" pretender based on "the traditional constitution". And the latter's claim is no more legal in Portugal than the former's. Pretendership exists in a parallel universe. To the extent it is encyclopedic at all, it can be so only insofar as it does not attempt to confound its deprecated hypotheses with the reality that Wikipedia seeks to engage and to reflect. There is little that is more unseemly, bewildering and base than the public mudslinging rival royal claimants engage in to denounce the pretensions of a kinsman. Seeing Wiki editors replicate those quarrels here is disheartening -- and weird. Maria Pia and Poidimani, or their backers, apparently "pretend" to the throne of Portugal, and have elaborated a rationale under which that makes sense to them. Let Maria Pia and Poidimani supporters embarrass their own cause through their assertions, so long as they do not misrepresent their opinions as facts or exclude appropriate, verifiable, relevant facts inserted by others. If their assertions depend upon impostorship -- rather than on a minority interpretation of possible facts -- let's choose a way to handle that subset of pretenders who were impostors, include that definition in the article and, again, let readers decide for themselves which pretenders' claims are those of impostors and which are "valid" -- instead of Wiki doing so. Lethiere 18:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is ridiculous for wikipedia to judge between the quality of claims of real pretenderships. We shouldn't judge between the two Two Sicilies candidates, or between the Orleanist, Legitimist, and Bonapartist pretenders in France, or between the two Brazilian candidates, or between the Prince of Naples and the Duke of Braganza.  But there is a difference between a pretender who is the genealogical representative (or one plausible claimant to be the genealogical representative) of an ancient dynasty that used to rule a country, and impostors. It's worth noting, though, that the Duke of Braganza's claim is, in fact, more legal in Portugal than Poidimani's - the Portuguese Republic has, as I understand it, officially recognized Duarte Pio as the official representative of Portugal's former royal family, or something similar.  Pretendership isn't entirely a fantasy world.  There are real things that go alongside it.  Archduke Otto is still considered the Grand Master of the Austrian Order of the Golden Fleece, for instance.  Some pretenders, like the aforementioned Duarte Pio, or the various French pretenders, get some kind of official recognition as pretenders by the current republican governments.  Others have until recently been forbidden by law to enter the country over which their family once ruled.  Pretendership may sometimes exist in a parallel universe, but sometimes it exists in the real world.  For instance, the Duke of Bavaria's claims to the English, Scottish, and Irish thrones only exist in a parallel universe - they are nothing but a genealogical fact, and have no bearing on the man's life.  But his claim to the equally non-existent Bavarian throne is a reality in a way that the other claim is not - he holds numerous honorary positions in Bavaria as a result of it.  I think he still lives in one of the former royal palaces.  His surname is "Herzog von Bayern."  Obviously he is not the King of Bavaria, and calling him the "rightful King of Bavaria" is stupid (and I admit that it was stupid of me to call the Duke of Braganza the rightful king under the "traditional constitution" of Portugal), but pretendership is nonetheless a real thing, and the real kind of pretendership ought to be distinguished from the phony kind represented by someone like Poidimani.  It strikes me, beyond this, that only the kind of pretendership that actually involves making some sort of claims in the real world, or acting as Head of House, should be listed in this article.  We shouldn't take sides in genuine disputes, but ought to be clear to distinguish impostures.  Beyond that, in cases where there is a dispute, we should be careful to give due weight to the positions based on the strength of the POV.  For instance, I believe that the late Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia's eldest son disputes his exclusion, and has claimed the pretendership.  This should probably be mentioned somewhere (and, in fact, is not), but shouldn't be given equal weight with the general consensus that his nephew is the current pretender.  Similarly, the claims of the Lambrinos in Romania should be mentioned, but not given equal weight with the claims of the former King.  And so forth.  john k 20:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never seen an encyclopedia where a pretender is declared false or impostor without insert the impartial and legal source. Also for this is correct and neutral delete in the pretender wikipage the affirmation against Rosario Poidimani, the heir of Maria Pia, as false pretender. Infact the last news in this dispute is the Portuguese Government has officially decides [ see  http://www.parlamento.pt/plc/requerimento.aspx?req_id=36925 ] to not "legitimize" any pretenders because the Portugal is a Republic and so it can't enter in this matter. This decision is obtained after the request of the president of the People's Monarchist Party (Partido Popular Monárquico) against the abuse of power of the portuguese ambassador in Italy (and friend of Duarte Pio) that the last year declared Duarte Pio is the legitimate pretender in Portugal. At the end there are not impartial and official sources that judge Maria Pia and Rosario as false pretender, so if some users insert this affirmation this is only a NPOV or is their personal points of view (at the contrary please insert here the impartial and official source of this). Many royalist in Portugal affirm the only fake and false Duke of Braganza and pretender in Portugal is Duarte Pio of Braganza. At the end I think is also appropriate insert in the wiki page of this pretender the name Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza and not Hilda Toledano. Hilda Toledano is only a pseudonym as writer but here we discuss of her claims and in all her official documents is reported only the name Maria Pia de Saxe Coburg Braganza. This is other NPOV attempt to denigrate this pretender in order to favour Duarte Pio.Justiceiro 10:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Apropo, I do not think there is sufficient proper grounds to regard Duarte Pio as heir "according to traditional constitution". What is traditional constitution, before 19th century? It was based on cognatic succession, similar to that in use in the UK. Nothing save miracle can make "the heir-male" of a really cadet branch as heir in a system that allows cognatic succession. And traditional constitution did not allow Manoel II to adopt an heir (nor would it have allowed Hilda to adopt a heir, or Carlos to make Hilda eligible for succession). This, of course, is going again to merits of their claims, something that is not the job of WP. But needs to be mentioned, because some are basing Duarte's position on similar arguments of merits. I believe that when Manoel II died, there existed his cognatic cousins who were not rulers of any existing monarchy at that time any longer, and could well have been regarded as heirs general to Portuguese monarchy (had Manoel not been deposed, Portugal would have arranged for his succession, presumably using its conventional cognatic line, when it became foreseeable that a successor will be needed as he was not siring children). It should be recognized here that Duarte Pio is pretender on basis of wide acceptance in monarchist circles, and as a cadet descendant of old dynasty, but not as its clear heir - he is clear heir of only a usurper king who was deposed. And, the title of Braganza duke comes from a different justification: as far as I have understood points available even here, it comes from the dukedom granted to the future Pedro I of Brazil (ironically: remember that Duarte Pio descends from the rival of Miguel too). Marrtel 06:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with this analysis of the two dynastic claims (although, to be fair, it should be noted that john k retracted his reference to "the traditional constitution of Portugal"). The problem with excluding Hilda Toledano on the grounds that her claim rests upon royal recognition that is wrongly presumed to have legal validity, is that the claim of the pretender "recognized" as "legitimate" in this article, Dom Duarte Duke of Braganza, rests largely on the same basis (the 1922 post-monarchy Pact of Paris). While I don't equate the two claims (I happen to consider Dom Duarte the "rightful pretender"), I consider that Wiki's obligation is to approach them without pre-conceived bias, process information about them in the same way, and encourage readers to make appropriate inferences about them by providing as much accurate, relevant data as possible. Since this article lists pretenders without presenting the evidence on which their claims are based, Wiki editors bear an extra responsibility to be objective and fair in selecting pretenders for inclusion. I get increasingly uncomfortable with arguments that Wiki editors should substitute their judgment for that of Wiki's readership -- particularly with respect to a "line" of pretenders (and their royalist advocates) whose claim has persisted for 50 years now, and which I find mentioned in, for example, such respected works as Valynseele's "Les Prétendants aux Trônes d'Europe" (1967, page 308)) and Tourtchine's C.E.D.R.E. "Le Royaume de Portugal-L'Empire du Brésil", volume II (1987, Pages 177-178). Please, I don't want to hear the pros and cons of Maria Pia's or Dom Duarte's claims here -- I want to read about both -- or neither -- in the appropriate articles in Wikipedia. Lethiere 02:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Deposed monarchs
The opening paragraph of the article presently contains the following sentence: "Deposed monarchs are not seen as pretenders, as the term only applies to those who have never occupied the throne." Nonsense! There are all sorts of published sources which describe deposed monarchs who continue to claim their thrones as "pretenders" or "claimants" (indeed, often such deposed monarchs are far far more active as pretenders or claimants than the descendants of long-ago monarchs). Today somebody removed the entry on Bulgaria. Can we agree to remove the sentence about deposed monarchs and to add several countries with deposed monarchs to the list of modern pretenders? Noel S McFerran 23:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not opposed to this at all. What do you think of clearing up the talk page a little as well? Charles 23:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Simeon, Michael, and Constantine should certainly be listed here. Are there any other living former monarchs?  Some of the rulers of Indian princely states are the only ones I can think of, and maybe Laos. john k 16:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, the former King of Afghanistan, as well. john k 16:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't find a discussion here in which any consensus was reached -- or attempted -- to replace Michael I of Romania as pretender with Paul Lamb-, er, Hohenzollern. What's up? Lethiere (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a list of Surviving deposed monarchs.195.93.21.9 16:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The King of Rwanda Kigeli V —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.203.158.141 (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

False pretenders
I have made a few edits to this section, regularising the entries and trying to make it more neutral. I would like to suggest a better (i.e. less POV) section heading, perhaps "Controversial pretenders". Can somebody come up with a better suggestion? I know that some of the ongoing edits from a certain editor are irritating, but I try to learn something positive from this experience. On the page Jacobite succession a difficult editor (he's got himself blocked several times for abusive language) was challenging things, but in spite of the fact that he was difficult, I think that the edits I made in response to his challenges were in the end an improvement in the page. Perhaps we can hope for something similar here. Noel S McFerran 21:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Controversial pretenders" seems to be bending over backwards the other way. The Duke of Aosta, for instance, is a controversial pretender, but he doesn't really belong with this bunch.  But I agree that "false pretenders" is not very good, either. john k 23:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Imaginary pretenders"? "Self-styled pretenders"? Actually that is less the pretender himself than his claim which, generally, is false. "Controversial pretenders" meens indeed something else (there is a controversy, not a falsification).

List of Royal Houses
May I draw to people's attention the existence of another wiki-article which duplicates much of this page (the other page was created September 28, 2006 by an anonymous editor). I think that this other page could be most misleading to many readers. Fortunately it is only linked to from one other page at present. Noel S McFerran 21:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that that article is bad, especially what with calling these people "Emperor Suchandsuch", which of course they are not. The images of the coats of arms are nice, though.  it ought to be deleted. john k 23:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

King Fernidad Frederick (Prussia)
I'm stuck on this one, Is he a Claimant, Pretender, Fake-Pretender or Mental Illness? He has a website at www.houseofhohenzollern.com and claims to be related to the Prussian Royal Family and is the current "King". The problem is that there is no current "King of Prussia" so what does that make him as far as a Pretender, since there is no ligitimate claim for "King" at this point? Intuitionz 08:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The legitimate claimant to be King of Prussia is Prince Georg Friedrich. He doesn't call himself King of Prussia, but he is recognized as the genealogical representative of the Kings of Prussia, and treated as head of house by other members of the family (although I believe his uncle, Prince Friedrich Wilhelm, who renounced his claims when he married unequally, has tried to take back his renunciation and claim the headship of house).  King Fernidad Frederick is somewhere between fake-pretender and mental illiness.  He doesn't even spell Ferdinand right! I would suggest that he's not even notable - every idiot with a website is not notable, even if they pretend to be the King of Bohemia.  john k 12:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, at least "Fernidad Frederick" has made up a genealogical claim which, if true, could conceivably make him the rightful heir to the Prussian throne. That's already better than old Dom Rosario.  john k 12:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Change to meaning of pretender
I came here to point out that, as currently defined in the article, "pretender" would be inapplicable to many of the people on the list; however, I can see that many of my points were already made above. For example, Franz, Duke of Bavaria has never actually made a claim to the throne of England, Scotland and Ireland. Should the definition of "pretender" be modified to include those people on whose behalf claims are made, whether or not the person actually makes the claim him/herself? JChap2007 19:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see any response to the above, or to the previous, now-archived, more comprehensive comment along the same lines. Accordingly, I am clarifying the definition of pretender.  I don't think this affects Hilda Toledano one way or the other. JChap2007 20:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do think further clarification is needed with regards to what exactly is a pretender. Some of the people listed are merely just descendants the last holder or claimant of an abolished title or position. They may not have made any claims themselves or have any interest in making them. Achou79 08:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed a disputed sentence from the intro which I now see has been discussed here above. I think:
 * If Peter says "I am the rightful king of Sweden," then Peter is a pretender.
 * If Carl says "Matt is the rightful king of Sweden," and Matt says "Okay, whatever," then Matt is not necessarily a pretender, but it's good to list him in this article, if a lot of people believe what Carl said.
 * If Carl says "Nate is the rightful king of Sweden," and Nate says "No I'm not," then Nate is definitely not a pretender, but it's good to list him in this article, perhaps under a separate heading, if a whole lot of people believe what Carl said.
 * If somebody can find a dictionary in which Matt or Nate fall under the definition of pretender, then I'll stand corrected; but I doubt that'll happen. It is not acceptable to give a false definition of pretender just so we can feel better about including Matt and Nate in this article. Include them, sure, because they're relevant; but don't call them "pretenders" unless they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quuxplusone (talk • contribs) 05:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree its patently ludicrous compiling a list consisting largely of apparent heirs of deposed monarchs and passing it off as a list of "pretenders" without any evidence that these people have made any (serious) claims to anything more than a nominal title (if even that) or that any notable person (or group of people) have purported to make such a claim on their behalf. Until such evidence is provided these lists largely consist of (at best) original research. By all means compile and post such a list but dont attempt to pass it off as something it plainly is not. 86.112.94.153 (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What on earth?
''Some sources suggest that Alice, Duchess of Calabria, is a pretender to the throne of England. This is because she is the senior descendant of King Edward the Confessor.(See, [1]). However, this is debateable - firstly, because the kingship of England in the Anglo-Saxon period was elective; secondly, because Edward had no children and, thus, cannot possibly have any living descendants; and, thirdly, senior descandant means she is the eldest living representatives of Edward the Confessor, rather than the closest living relation.''

This whole material is incredibly confusing, poorly written, and ridiculous, and I've removed it. It makes factual statements only to contradict them in the next sentence - Alicia is the senior descendant of Edward the Confessor, except that Edward the Confessor has no descendants. Alicia's claim is as follows: she is the heir-general of Edmund Ironside, eldest son of King Ethelred the Unready and elder brother to Edward the Confessor. She is also the heir-general to Edmund Ironside's granddaughter Margaret, who married King Malcolm III of Scotland. She is not the "oldest" descendant, she is the genealogically senior most descendant, in the same way that if the Queen and Prince Charles died tomorrow, Prince William would be the senior descendant of Electress Sophia, even though he would most certainly not be the oldest descendant of Electress Sophia, or even the oldest descendant of the present queen. The whole business appears to have been written by someone who only knows enough about genealogy to mislead others. The argument that Alicia's claim is invalid because the Anglo-Saxon throne was elective is perhaps valid, but the rest of it all seems to be misleading and ignorant nonsense. At any rate, perhaps some mention of Alicia is in order but it ought to be written by someone who knows what they're talking about. john k 22:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear John, from the edit history I found that the contradictions are due to different editors putting their input, and different editor changing a term where another term was used by earlier editor.... It seems to have been attempts from several to present different arguments, as is actually the idea of NPOV policy. Possibly they do not use coherent terminology with each other - that's probably the reason for contradictions you found. I oppose deletion of information. A mention about Alicia's claim to be representative of Anglo-saxon kingdom is needed hee, because Alicia's family makes that assertion, for example in their website. Marrtel 15:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to write something that's clear and not completely crazy and wrong, go ahead. Alicia is the genealogical representative of Edmund Ironside.  That's a fact.  She is also the heir-general, I believe, of David I of Scotland.  Also a fact.  I have no problem with mentioning either of those things.  (If she's going to be mentioned, though, I think her much stronger claim to be heiress of the Kingdom of Navarre should also be mentioned).  They are genealogical fictions, and were never used by her Bourbon ancestors even when it might have been useful for them to do so - Louis XIV and XV never claimed the English throne for themselves, in spite of their rather ironic status as heirs-general to the Anglo-Saxon dynasty, they just supported the Stuarts.  What we don't need, though are nonsensical counterarguments made by people who know absolutely nothing about genealogy.  Say that Alicia is the heiress of Edward the Confessor's older brother if you like.  But she isn't very much of a real pretender.  Does she have any actual supporters?  Her claim seems comparable to that of the Earl of Loudoun, or Lady Kinloss - it's an interesting genealogical extrapolation, not a real claim. john k 14:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi again
I've semi'd this cos of the reverting. If anyone (not in the revert war) can tell me what this Hilda Toledano nonsense is, I'd be grateful. User talk:Justiceiro is supposedly a sock, so gets 24h. What a mess William M. Connolley 20:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * One side regards her a hoax pretender, another side (apparently her supporters) are opposing putting her to list of falses. It all goes to the merits of those Portugiese claims, an issue not to be decided in this article. I would like to see all classification between falses and trues erased (who is to decide here between those, anyway?) and all pretenders of any monarchy should listed here - and their individual articles, or an article about an individual claim, explains then all pros and cons. At the moment, list of falses seems mostly comprised of persons who actually did not claim a monarchy, only a membershipin a dynasty. That's not pretendership, is it? If so, we can get rid of the classification by having an own article for royal impostors. Marrtel 15:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It does not merely go to the merits of the Portuguese claims. If Anna Anderson had claimed that she was the heiress of the Russian Imperial throne, there would of course be very strong legal arguments against such a claim, and in favor of the claims of Grand Dukes Cyril and Vladimir, due to the Pauline laws that governed the Russian succession - Anastasia would not have been her father's heir even if she had survived.  But those wouldn't be the only issue, as most people thought that she was not in fact Nicholas's daughter at all, making the Pauline laws irrelevant.  I would say that the consensus view is that Maria Pia/Hilda Toledano was not in fact the daughter of Carlos I.  This can be ascertained without reference to Portuguese succession laws by reference to the standard works on European royal genealogy (Burke's Royal Families of the World, the GHdA, the Almanach de Gotha, and so forth), none of which list or have ever listed Maria Pia as a daughter of Carlos I.  As such, one oughtn't need to get into the legal ins and outs of Portuguese law, but merely to the fact that we have to use reliable sources, and that reliable sources do not regard her as a daughter of Carlos I.  I agree, though, that an article on royal impostors makes more sense. john k 17:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * These genealogical sources only list children born in legitimate marriage (with some exceptions for Burke) or legitimated by subsequent marriage of their parents. They do not, for instance, list the legitimated children of Louis XIV, even though two of them (the duc du Maine and the comte de Toulouse) were also recognized as having succession rights for a while (as were the Valois-Orleans ducs de Longueville). One would not expect to find Maria Pia listed in these reference works. Reputable genealogical sources that have examined and dismissed (or accepted) Maria Pia's kinship to Carlos I should be cited in Wiki's references to her. Lethiere 20:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If I've cited the wrong specific sources, my apologies (although such sources might have a bearing on Maria Pia's claims to the right to succeed her purported half-brother on the Portuguese throne, I already said that that was somewhat beside the point). But there are reputable reference works on genealogy, and I would strongly doubt that any of them consider Maria Pia to be a daughter of Carlos I.  If they do this because they have examined her claims and found them wanting, all the better.  But that shouldn't be necessary - even if none of them mention Maria Pia only because they haven't heard of her claim, that is good enough.  Our default position is that Maria Pia was not the daughter of Carlos I.  We can't prove a negative.  There have to be reliable sources that state that she is Carlos I's daughter.  Until someone can find such a source, we are justified in calling her an impostor, I think. john k 21:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the sources you cite didn't include the duc du Maine or comte de Toulouse, would that justify Wiki classifying them as impostors? It's insufficient to say that "there are reputable reference works on genealogy, and I would strongly doubt that any of them consider Maria Pia to be a daughter of Carlos I." That is an unverified assumption, and no more appropriate to base a Wiki position of "impostorship" on than the unverified assumptions about the validity of her birth and dynastic claim put forth by her supporters. Nor does "there have to be reliable sources that state that she is Carlos I's daughter". There need only be a reliable source that indicates the matter is uncertain, or that merely reports the allegation. The standard of proof here is neither the truth of her birth nor the validity of her dynastic rights, but the notability of her claim. Why not present what we can find on Maria Pia to Wiki's readership, pro and con, and let them decide if she is an impostor? Lethiere 04:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What? Even if the Gotha didn't include the Comte de Toulouse, there are plenty of reliable sources that say that the Comte de Toulouse was Louis XIV's son.  Our aim in this article is to present standard understandings of royal genealogy,  and the standard understanding is that Maria Pia is an impostor.  I'm perfectly happy to call her Maria Pia, if this is what she went by - I also think we should call Michael of Albany "Michael of Albany."  But NPOV doesn't mean we present all opinions as equivalent.  It means we give each of them "due weight."  What weight is due to the belief that she is really the daughter of King Carlos?  How much weight to the opinion that she is the legitimate heir to the Portuguese throne under the 1838 constitution?  As far as I can gather, neither of these opinions has ever been very widely held. john k 14:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how one measures "standard understandings" if not by citing reputable sources on the matter, which you haven't done. I would argue that Wiki's aim is to present verifiable findings about royalty, which is much more measurable than "standard". I agree that it would be tedious and counter-productive to have to cite references for every widely accepted point mentioned in Wikipedia, and do not mean to suggest that is required. But once a point has been challenged by an alternative interpretation of facts that cites sources, it can no longer simply be excluded from Wikipedia by saying that it is not the "standard understanding". At that point, the grounds for considering Wiki's POV standard must be cited -- and even then that may be insufficient to exclude a differing POV which, if there is any chance the documents cited are accurate (and is any of us in a position to certify that Maria Pia's aren't?) it is properly handled by reporting the controversy, citing the allegations and the facts purported to support them, and leaving it to readers to draw their own conclusions. I entirely agree that the space allocated to the Maria Pia POV should be "due weight". But that's where I have a problem with your argument: in the very few reputable sources I have to hand (and have mentioned here), her claim is not ignored, but reported.
 * Whether or not she was Charles' natural daughter is questionable but the fact that any descent of hers from Charles would be from an adulterous line is a MASSIVE no-no in any succession law. Therefore her claims to be Duchess of Braganza make her an imposter. Charles 04:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The most important court in the world for the Roman Catholic Church, the Sacred Roman Rota in the 1982 issued with FINAL judgement the validity of the baptisimal documents of Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza, destroyed during the Spanish Civil War, and in these documents are reported the name as her father of the king Charles of Portugal. Witness in this case were important personalities as for example the king of Spain Alfonso XIII, big friend of the king Charles of Portugal. Was also confirmed the validity of the document with which the king recognised Maria Pia as his daughter and that provided "she may be called by my name and enjoy from now on the use of this name with the honours, prerogatives, rank, obligations and advantages of the princes of the House of Bragança of Portugal". This was an important document and the will of the king was evident. The Royal House of Saxe Coburg Braganza was a Roman Catholic monarchy so this final judgement of the Sacred Roman Rota has a unique and irrefutable value: Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza was the daughter of the king Charles and she was for the will of the king the pretender of the Saxe Coburg Braganza branch, the only legitimate branch of the Royal House of Portugal. The illegitimate decisiones of Salazar, the dictator friend of Duarte Nuno in order to "legitimize" this pretender has no value because this dictator has no power to decide who was the legitimate pretender of the Royal House of Portugal. At the contrary the Duchess of Braganza Maria Pia opposed the dictator Salazar in order to supported the democratic general Humberto Delgado. Dear Charles, the succession law issued the categorical and perpetually prohibition of the miguelist branch in order to became king of Portugal and these miguelists, after the Banishment Law, became plebeians for will of the Cortes and the king of Portugal, so after this Banishment who is the king that granted them the title of Duke of Braganza? This is a big abuse of Duarte Nuno and Duarte Pio, they are dukes of anything, they were foreign and plebeians and their claims to be the legitimate dukes of Braganza a big joke. If not please explain here the contrary but with official documents and not with talks. For example where I can see the "ghost" pact of Dover and Paris with the will and the sign of the king Manuel? The claim of Maria Pia are based only on official and existing documents so please also the pretender Duarte proves with existent documents his claims. At the end the most important Encyclopedia of portuguese History, "Història de Portugal Vol. III A.H. de Oliveira Marques" indicates Maria Pia as portuguese pretender. This is an impartial and objective source. Justiceiro 08:00, 06 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is all nonsense. I find it ridiculous that people keep interposing to call me to account for saying perfectly reasonable things, and lets these constant flows of utter ridiculousness from Justiceiro go by without comment. john k 14:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember the degree to which it is alleged to be "nonsense" and "ridiculous" the next time some editor on Wiki is incensed that you dare to disagree with him on a point he considers too obvious to have to prove :-) I agree with you and disagree with Justiceiro on Maria Pia/Poidimani, and I think I do so for good reasons that are, I'm sure, the same as yours. But there are three differences: 1. I think Justiceiro will hoist himself with his own petard if we give him sufficient rope. 2. I think that it is a mistake for a Wiki article titled "Pretender" to assert that there are "legitimate" pretenders and "illegitimate" pretenders, and to arrogate the prerogative of deciding which is which. 3. I am dismayed that someone whose knowledge and good judgment in these matters I not only respect in these discussions but habitually rely upon, should take up the position of summary censorship of a minority, but not obscure or impossible, line of reasoning. There are other editors interested in these articles who, even when knowledgeable, do not hesitate to substitute their personal views for facts and/or the collective wisdom of this group. I have always perceived your input to be far more committed to objectivity, fairness, and collegiality, and you as willing to let the chips fall where they may even if that doesn't accord with your own pre-conceptions or preferences. I consider Justiceiro, in all his various puppet-forms, to be a crank or, even more pitifully, a true believer. Whereas, I consider you an authority here. So yes, my standard of expectation from you is vastly higher. That said, I may indeed be the one who is out-of-line on all of these points, but I am willing to engage you so that we can discover the relevant truth together. In all respect, Lethiere 18:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[Ending indenting]. Lethiere, let me respond to your points.
 * 1) Surely Justiceiro has already hoist himself by his own petard by any reasonable standard. Wikipedia should not be a place for interested parties to push their fringe POVs.
 * 2) I agree to an extent. It's certainly not wikipedia's job to judge between the rival claimants for the French, Sicilian, and Brazilian thrones, for instance.  It may not be our job to judge between the Prince of Naples and the Duke of Aosta (or do we have to call him the "Duke of Savoy" now?), or between Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia and his uncle.  At the same time, it is perfectly appropriate for Wikipedia to make some judgments.  If there is very strong evidence to suggest that a person is not who they say they are, it ought to be fine for wikipedia to say as much.  I would expand this to say that if there is no apparent legal basis in the former monarchy for a person's claim, it doesn't really matter if they are an actual dynast.  For instance, if Prince Michael of Greece decided tomorrow to claim the Greek throne, on the basis that he is a male line descendant of King George I, but without even a shred of an explanation as to why the former King and his children should be excluded, I think it would be entirely acceptable to indicate that there is no apparent basis for such a claim.  There has to be some plausible basis for a claim.  We oughtn't to be making such judgments ourselves, but there are reliable sources that have made such judgments, and it ought to be fine to rely on them.  Obviously, though, this is question of degree.  But I don't think the only issue is that if two people are both notable for claiming a throne, we can't make any judgment between them.  As of the period of the July Monarchy, there were two legitimist claimants to the French throne.  One, the Comte de Chambord, was the genuine claimant.  The other, Naundorff, was an impostor.  Surely the two, one real, the other false, should not be listed as though they are equivalent to one another simply because both are well known and had followers?
 * 3) I don't think I'm advocating censorship at all. A problem with this discussion, perhaps, is that nobody is very clear what exactly we are are arguing for in terms of article content.  Perhaps I've been particularly deficient in this regard.  Let me try to outline it:
 * 4) First, I do not think Dom Rosario should be in the list of pretenders here. While Maria Pia is probably notable, there has  been little evidence to suggest he is.  His article was, in fact, deleted following a vote for deletion as being non-notable.  This may or may not have been appropriate, but until the point that his article is recreated, his being listed here shouldn't be up for discussion until that deletion decision is reversed.  Even then, I question whether his claim has very much more notability than that of Prince Fernidad Frederick, or, on another side, the "claim" of Princess Alicia of Bourbon-Parma to the English throne.  Whether Maria Pia herself should be listed in the main list is entirely moot - she is dead, and the list is only of current claimants.
 * 5) Second, I think that Maria Pia's life and claims ought to be discussed fairly and neutrally in the article devoted to her. I would have no problem with moving that article to the name she used for much of her life, even if that name was, as I believe, based on false pretenses, so long as the article is fairly clear on this.
 * 6) Third, I see no particular problem with listing Maria Pia among the impostor pretenders, as this is what she is generally considered to be. I would, however, support the development of more neutral wording on the subject.
 * What exactly are the other issues at hand here? I fear that we've gotten rather far afield from the specifics of articles, and into more philosophical territory.  john k 01:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, no progress being made here, as we're beginning to repeat our arguments. Let us agree to disagree. Lethiere 05:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you disagree with everything? Is it your position that Dom Rosario should be listed in the list of pretenders?  Do you think it's wrong to treat the Comte de Chambord and Naundorff as substantively different during the period of the July Monarchy? I'm not sure I can agree to disagree because I'm not sure what your argument is in terms of what we actually do to the articles.  I can't imagine that you disagree with my 3.2, do you?  I have some further thoughts on "real pretenders" vs. "fake pretenders," depending on your answer above. john k 13:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that the current claimant of Maria Pia's "line" should be listed in this article, whose content is what I understood us to be negotiating. Her claim has been consistently asserted for 50 years, persisting years beyond her death; there are official documents relevant to the claim; there are advocates for the claim; there's evidence of interest in the claim; the claim has been reported for decades in reputable sources that provide information about pretenders to thrones; and there is enough verifiable information relevant to the claim and the identity of the claimants for Wikipedia to shed some light on the matter for the general reader. Of course I don't think the comte de Chambord and Naundorff should be treated as if the findings about their identities/claims are equivalent; that's what I meant when I agreed that "due weight" should be assigned to coverage of differing POVs. But if C.E.D.R.E. can give an entire page to coverage of her claim, never even hint that its editor has an opinion in the matter, and yet the reader emerges with a fairly strong and clear sense of the gravamen of evidence, I can't see why that's beyond Wiki, which has far more resources and editors at its command than C.E.D.R.E. had when its article was written. Unless every pretender mentioned in the article must have an independent article about him/her, it is a red herring whether or not Wiki has one: It is the claim that has attained sufficient notability to be included in an article named Pretender, whether or not every bearer of that claim is individually notable. Surely it goes without saying that in every Wiki subject's bio, her "life and claims ought to be discussed fairly and neutrally in the article devoted to her"? And that article's name should reflect how she is most commonly referred to in English? Since no one has disagreed that Wiki should remain "neutral" between "bona fide" but rival claimants, that is also a red herring. I do not agree that Wiki can or should divide claimants up into "real pretenders" and "fake pretenders": There are pretenders, none of whose claims are recognized as legitimate by the regimes of the nations to which they pretend (despite trivial forms of acknowledgment they may receive from governments -- which pale beside the fundamental assertion of a right to reign). A subset of pretenders are impostors, whose legal claims may be less Wiki-notable (because bogus) than is the fact that they have sustained public interest, e.g. Anna Anderson, Kasper Hauser, Tancrede de Rohan, etc. We seem, in other words, to have reached a basic disagreement about what "pretender" means. Lethiere 21:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A couple of thoughts here, then.
 * In the first place, you'll note that the most recent edit warring on this page has been between whether or not Maria Pia should be listed as an impostor, not whether or not Dom Rosario should be listed as a current pretender. This is part of why I was confused as to what exactly we were arguing about.
 * In the second place, let's assume that Maria Pia's claim is notable, and that, were she still alive, it would be appropriate to list her as a claimant, however legally and factually dubious her claims may have been. Do we have any reliable sources, though, that she transmitted her claim to Dom Rosario?  As far as I am aware, this is a claim which is basically asserted by websites created by Dom Rosario, and in statements on the web by his supporters.  Maria Pia had actually blood relations, some of whom are presumably still alive.  That Dom Rosario should properly be considered to be Maria Pia's successor seems in some doubt.  In the absence of any clear evidence of that, we need to ask whether his claim, in itself, is notable, without connecting it to Maria Pia's, which seems a dubious connection (unless we can find genuine independent sources on it, in which case I'll withdraw this point).  Dom Rosario has already been judged to be not notable, and his article was deleted.  Unless we can find strong, reliable sources to connect his claim properly to Maria Pia's, it seems to me that it is very problematic to list him on the basis that he is the successor to her claim.
 * I haven't examined the validity of Dom Rosario's connection to Maria Pia. If it is demonstrably false, I agree with you. If it is dubious, we can simply cite the evidence that makes it so. Lethiere 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Lethiere, I think I'm coming closer to the difference between us, which is more or less one of burden of proof. In my view, it is up to Dom Rosario's supporters to provide reliable evidence for their own claims.  It is not our responsibility to disprove them. john k 01:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it's about burden of proof, I see our difference as lying in what that proof must be adduced for: You seem to insist that potential pretenders in this article prove the plausibility of their claim to the satisfaction of editors here. I think their burden is merely to show its notability, thereby qualifying the claim's rationale for evaluation by Wiki's readership -- not its editors. If, when discussing the Portuguese pretendership, it is reasonably likely that the Maria Pia/Dom Rosario claim will be brought up, Wiki readers are helped by being able to look that claim up here, whether the information they then find tends to legitimize or to debunk the claim's validity. Lethiere 21:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thirdly, in a perfect world I think your basic position would have a great deal of merit. I am however, far less confident than you that Wikipedia will be able to reach the clarity of a source like C.E.D.R.E. on topics such as this.  I think your proposed solution makes it very easy for a more intelligent and subtle POV pusher than Justiceiro/Manuel de Sousa/whatever he's called to make a real mess of things.  This is perhaps not in itself a justifiable reason to
 * Actually, I think this is your strongest argument. I've noticed how easy it is for someone determined to have his way to game the system, then cover his tracks. I'm more willing to support exclusion (of an article or topic within an article) as a remedy when it's used against repeat offenders whose multiple attempts to compel Wiki to reflect their views can be documented by looking at the pattern of their disputes on other articles. Lethiere 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly this is the case for the Dom Rosario supporter who has, under various user names/IP addresses, been involved in wikipedia. At least, in my view. john k 01:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To the extent that he seeks to manipulate Wikipedia into reflecting his specific views of the Maria Pia/Dom Rosario claim, I agree that exclusion of that POV is appropriate. To the extent that he maintains that Wiki is censoring a person whose name is apt to come up in discussions about Portuguese pretenders, and thereby denying readers access to information in Wiki about that pretender's claim, I think his advocacy has merit. Lethiere 21:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fourthly, I don't think that the points I made about my desire for a fair article and a title at a location where the person was actually called go at all without saying. Notice our articles at Hilda Toledano and Michel Lafosse.  In the latter case, proposals to move to Michael of Albany have met with fairly staunch opposition.  Notice the people who, on the Anna Anderson page, have wished to simply give Franziska Schanzkowska's birthdate as being Anna Anderson's birthdate.  Until this dispute arose, I've generally found that, in being in favor of these two things, I've quite frequently been in the middle position in disputes over these kinds of issues.  There are a lot of people who just want to say that Anna Anderson was Franziska Schanzkowska, for instance.
 * Point taken. But that doesn't resolve this article. Lethiere 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed it doesn't. john k 01:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Finally, it would appear that there is a fundamental disagreement here about what it means to be a pretender. In my view, to an extent one can categorize pretenderships into different categories, some of which are more real than others.  In the first place, I think that you are putting too much emphasis on the "fundamental assertion of a right to reign" as a characteristic of pretenders.  I would suggest that most pretenders, at present, make no such assertion.  The heads of the historic royal houses of Europe generally claim, as far as I can tell, to be, well, the head of their house, the genealogicla heirs to the ancient dynasty that once ruled the country, and to be open to the possibility of restoration, should the people decide that this is a good idea.  They can be fierce in their opposition to rival claimants, but few today seem to actually deny the legitimacy of the republican governments currently in place.  This may not be true of all claimants (the former Balkan monarchs seem to tend to make stronger claims, perhaps because there is a greater possibility of an actual restoration), but as far as I can gather it is more or less the basic position of many of them.  Certainly most do not express a Bourbon Legitimist/Jacobite view of divine right and de jure kingship.  In the second place, I think you are underestimating the extent to which pretendership has real world results.  Oftentimes, much of the property of former monarchs has been inherited by their descendants.  Certainly this is true in Germany, where many of the ruling families, at least in the west, still live in the same habitations that their royal ancestors did, and still own large estates that derive from their royal predecessors.  In Serbia, iirc, Crown Prince Alexander was given use of (ownership of, even?) some of the old royal palaces in Belgrade.  Sometimes the republican governmtsn more less officially recognize them as representatives of the ancient dynasty.  Obviously this is not true of all "real" pretenders, but one of those features or another is generally fairly common.  So long as we have reliable source s on this subject, it's perfectly reasonable to make judgments on the basis of that.  john k 13:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed that most "bona fide" pretenders don't actively assert a right to reign anymore. But that simply calls into question the accuracy of Wiki's designating them "pretenders" (or "claimants"; the same holds true for the prevalent euphemism employed among monarchists) at all. I have previously argued that a term closer to the reality in such cases is "historic heir". But since that phrase would be a neologism, it wouldn't get these ex-royals into Wikipedia, which seems to be the agreed-upon objective in this article. If we are straining the meaning of the term "pretender", that needs to be looked at, more than does the fact that, in the normal meaning of the word, there is no legal distinction between "legitimate pretenders" and "fake pretenders". As for the legal, official and unofficial marks of distinction accorded to historical heirs that are not enjoyed by impostors, while these are of great interest within chivalric, genealogical & monarchist circles, I contend that they are trivial to the vast majority (what most deem relevant about these dynasties is the act/date of deposition and the absence, to date, of restoration) and therefore don't merit hyped importance in Wiki. Lethiere 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no question in my mind that heirs to various royal claims are notable for wikipedia purposes. There was a relatively recent Vanity Fair article that profiled many of them, for instance.  Before the late Comte de Paris' death in 1999, I had read several mainstream media articles that discussed him.  Dr. Otto Habsburg frequently shows up in the media, and so forth.  Do you think that any other elderly Italian aristocrat's arrest for pandering would have gotten as much news coverage as the Prince of Naples' did?  I've seen Crown Prince Alexander on CNN, and read articles in the Washington Post on Grand Duchess Maria and her son.  Whatever we call them, these people are clearly notable.  This is perhaps less true of the heirs to some of the lesser German thrones, but they are certainly no less notable than your average British hereditary peer, all of whom have been treated as notable for wikipedia purposes.  Certainly, as a rule, they do not bear the same level of notability of a reigning royal, but they are, nonetheless, I think, clearly notable.  There is no need to use some particular term to "get them into wikipedia."  As to whether there is no distinction between "legitimate pretenders" and "fake pretenders," sure.  But different claims have different levels of notability.  In the 19th century, the claims of the Comte de Chambord, after 1844 the undoubted heir to the senior line of the House of France, were worlds more important than the claims of an impostor like Naundorff (or even, at the time, the claims of the Bonapartes).  That the various actual privileges and so forth enjoyed by pretenders are not of incredible importance to the general public seems irrelevant - if Dom Duarte Pio is not important to most Portuguese, how much less so is his "rival"?  john k 01:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is still a matter of debate whether monarchical claims to no-longer-extant countries (Hanover, Navarre, Two Sicilies) are notable: it seems to me that when Wiki editors who only occasionally run into such articles do so, they often conclude that the article is, or is encrusted with, non-notable "royalty-cruft". Also, many editors whose focus is recent national politics or history in extant countries (i.e. Greece, Romania, Iran, etc), find these articles and references unacceptably (pro-monarchist) POV as well, because of the tendency to refer to ex-dynasts as if still reigning. Nor is their notability comparable to that of British peers, which derives from the fact that until recently they were members of a national legislature. Thus an article on pretenders can usefully collect and report on obscure princes, diminishing the tendency to "load" info about ex-royalty in other articles. But that brings us back to the question of whether "pretender" has been stretched in meaning to allow us to shoe-horn into it persons who do not genuinely "pretend" to a "right to reign" (or at least seriously express their eligibility therefor) -- thereby driving us into arguments and evaluations that are not about whether a claim is asserted (which makes the person, ipso facto, a "pretender" -- though not necessarily a notable one), but whether someone is rightfully "the historical heir" of some ex-dynasty -- which is not what pretender/claimant means outside of monarchist/genealogical jargon. Lethiere 21:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * About your second point see WP:ROYAL and in particular Pretenders to European thrones are considered notable, as are their consorts and heirs-apparent and presumptive. This can be extended to other pretenderships if it can be demonstrated that the pretendership itself is notable.Justiceiro 21:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That phrase (in a page which is merely a proposal, not a guideline) was intended to refer to non-controversial pretenders. Otherwise the proposal means that King Fernidad Frederick of Prussia is automatically notable.  Its wording ought to be changed. john k 12:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Page revamp
Whomever did it, great job! Therequiembellishere 03:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Poland
Who put Poland out of the list? If you have pretenders like Moritz of Hesse for Finalnd on the list, then you should also have Count Leo Stefan of Habsburg as pretender to the Polish Throne included. His ancestor Archduke Charles Stephen of Austria was definitively closer to the Polish Throne than for example the Duke of Urach to the Lithuanian one.. Thus either you cancel all pretenders of "weak" claims or you put Leo Stefan back on the list.

Albrecht H. 25.4.2007


 * The Duke of Urach and Prince Frederick Charles of Hesse were both offered the Lithuanian and Finnish thrones. Archduke Charles Stephen was only a potential candidate who was never offered the throne. dwc lr 16:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * He was more than a potential candidate; according to his biography (by B. Hamann) he was offered the Polish Throne two times, for the first time by the provisional polish states council at 1.5.1917 which wanted him as regent; then German Emperor Wilhelm II offered him the polish crown in August 1918 in the name of himself and Charles I of Austria. Albrecht H, 27.5.2007


 * Did he accept the crown? Was there legislation nominating him King of Poland? Charles 07:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * At the first time he didn't because Charles I was against his candidacy. At the second time he could no longer agree because the defeat of his supporting countries was already obvious (saying "its already too late"). There was legislation nominating him King, the provisional states council passed a resolutuion which declared him King. Albrecht H, 28.5.2007


 * He didn't accept the crown at any rate. Charles 08:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In the opposite of Wilhelm of Urach or Wilhelm II in the case of Courland he was honest and renounced a throne for a few days. But he was also seen as by far number one candidate during the whole pre- WW2 time (what cannot really be pretended in case of the other "weak" candidates) when it was supposed that Marshall Piłsudski would designate him as royal successor, but this never happened because his testament wasn't existing or was lost. Until today, if Poland will ever have a monarchy, a descendent of Charles Stephen will be candidate number one, because the Polish Habsburgs still enjoy a high amount of respect in the country, today mainly the still living Maria Christina of Habsburg (Altenburg). In general it makes no sense to have people like Wilhelm of Urach and also the Hesse dynasty in the case of Finland in the list and not the Dukes of Teschen in the case of Poland. Albrecht H, 28.5.2007
 * Ok, you don't want to discuss the Poland case.. I won't put it back in the list, but I will be consequent. As long as you don't bring acceptable arguments to explain why to remove Poland, I will remove the other weak claims!! Thus Finland, the carlists and Lithuania. Albrecht H. 3.6.2007


 * That, my friend, would be vandalism. I have already discussed the Poland case. Charles 03:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But explain me only one thing: Why is the claim of the Dukes of Urach "stronger" than the claim of Leo Stefan??? Duke Wilhelm (Mindaugas II) has even never been in "his" country!! Leo Stefan was the number one candidate for more than 10 years and he really was a respected man in Poland. In the opposite to that nobody knew in Lithuania the Duke of Urach or in Finland the Hesse family (exception Mannerheim), they also have never take possession of their thrones.. Then the carlists; they are extinct!! What Carlos Hugo is doing is simply upholding a political idea, he thus isn't a real pretender; because the heir to the carlists is as you hopefully know the Duke of Anjou, and as far as I know he doesn't claim the Spanish Throne at all.Albrecht H. 3.6.2007


 * The Duke of Urach actually reigned (for four months). Leo Stefan did not. It does not matter how popular he was, he was only ever a candidate. Charles 13:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How can you reign if you are not in your country!! How can you reign if your country is under occupation!! msvj 4.6.2007


 * Canada for your first question and the Netherlands for your second. Charles 23:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice, I always learn something new, the non-sovereign duchy of Urach was the Mother-country of Lithuania, the no longer existing state of Hesse-Kassel of Finland, nice!! And Wilhelmina got her throne from Hitler, also really logic!! Please come to an end with the discussion, eather you remove all (!!!!!!!) only very formal pretenders (you all know who I mean), or you put all of them (back) on the list! msvj 5.6.2007

Habsburg Titles
Why is Bohemia on the list but not the other Habsburg titles? Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary were the only Habsburg titles in popular use when Austria-Hungary was dissolved. Why is Bohemia listed and not the other titles (at least the royal ones like King of Croatia, Dalmatia, Slavonia, Galicia, Jerusalem). Also, shouldn't there be a section somewhere about the Kingdom of Jerusalem and its current claiments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emperor001 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Well, I know at least that the primary styles used by members of the family are Prince Imperial and Archduke of Austria, Prince Royal of Hungary and Bohemia. For whatever reason, Bohemia is considered one of the primary titles. Charles 00:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem
If one were to add all of the claiments to the exinct throne of Jerusalem which was created during the crusades, would it be placed under Europe since it was a European puppet government ruled by a European and all of the claiments are European, or would it go under Asia since it is in Asia. Emperor001 18:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Habsburg kingdoms
Aside from Hungary and Bohemia, didn't most of the other kingdoms fall under the administration of larger entities? Charles 12:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point, but I think as far as I can see all territorial entities of the former Habsburg empire are in the list, thus all in the Reichsrat represented kingdoms and countries (the official name of the country! Austria-Hungary is constitutionally not correct and was never written down in any constitutional document; in that matter Hungary, Bohemia, Moravia, Istria etc. had all the same "rank", there was no subordination of for example of Marovia to Bohemia, but after the Ausgleich there was one within the transleithanian part of the empire, Croatia was subordinated to Hungary..). With four exceptions all countries of today Austria, Istria, Austrian Silesia the Bukowina (I tried to correct that, but like in the case of Poland a nice person doesn't really like a logic in the structure of the article) and by a certain way Bosnia and Hercegowina. So also here we should discuss what criteria we really have to put countries in the list; is it the former constitutional status (and at which time, before or after 1867?; I mean best is after, thats why I cancelled Illyria and added the Krain and the Bukowina), the relation to now existing states or a former independant status..? Make a decision and don't simple cancel countries without any reasonable argument! Albrecht H. 28.5.2007
 * MY proposal to bring a reasonable structure in the article: to avoid having the half of the list full of former Austrian states, we put them together after the criteria to which country they belong (by majority) today, and if there is a "third"country to which they belong today, then there should be a seperate "posting". Exapmle: Transsilvania and Galicia & Lodomeria (merged with the Bucowina) get an own posting, but Moravia, Bohemia and Austrian Silesia are merged. Like it has already been done in the case of Slawonia, Dalmatia and Croatia (and Illyria); Carniola (Krain) is merged with Istria, Bosnia-Hercegowina, Hungary and "Austria" get an own posting, although the Austrian case can be discussed, but it needs too much space to write down all countries of todays Austria.. Albrecht H. 28.5.2007
 * Why not simply "Austria" and "Hungary"? john k 06:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. I think that Austria-Hungary (and Bohemia) can go together. Charles 06:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Austria-Hungary article notes the Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary so I have removed all other territories except for Austria, Bohemia and Hungary. If Austria-Hungary should only be used, then that can be done. Some of the territories were only linked to the Austria-Hungary article anyway. Charles 15:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. I think that all Habsburg titles should just be grouped as Austria-Hungary unless there was a claim, like King of Jerusalem, that existed outside the empire.  Saying Austria-Hungary just keeps things simple.  Emperor001 21:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Charles Napoleon
Could Charles Napoleon, in adition to being a pretender for France also be considered a pretender for Holland, Spain, Italy, Naples, and Wesphalia because of all of the titles Napoleon I gave himself and his relatives, or would there be no legitimacy for most of them as most of them were filled after the Napoleonic era with people that Napoleon deposed? Emperor001 21:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No original research is an official policy of Wikipedia. If there is a reputable source claiming that Charles Napoleon is a pretender to the throne of Holland or Spain, then that can be added here.  If there is no such reputable source, then it's original research (i.e. "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories") and has no place in Wikipedia. Noel S McFerran 21:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Wasn't sure, although, I noticed after making this comment that Charles Napoleon is now listed as the pretender to Wesphalia.  Not sure if that is valid.  Emperor001 21:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Just looked on alt.talk.royalty. It turns out that the current prince Napoleon could claim the thrones of France, Italy, Holland, Spain, and Wesphalia but, with the eception of France and Italy, one could not hold more than one throne. For example, if Joseph Bonaparte became Emperor of the French, he would have to give up being King of Spain. I am removing Joseph as a claiment to the throne of Wesphalia, but am adding him to the claiments for Italy. Emperor001 21:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Charles Napoleon is not really the pretender to any throne since he is an avowed republican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.203.158.141 (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Navarre
Shouldn't Henri, Comte de Paris, duc de France be listed as a pretender to Navarre since whoever is the heir to the Royal throne of France also inherits the throne of Navarre? Don't the unionists regard him as the rightful king of France and Navarre? Emperor001 17:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Russia
Prince Nicholas Romanovsky (self-styled Prince of Russia) is not a pretender to the Russian throne. He himself does not claim the throne, nor does he have suppporters who claim that he is the rightful heir to the throne. He is not even the senior legitimate male-line descendant of any tsar. He is merely the President of the Romanov Family Association which states on its webpage, "All the members of the Romanoff Family Association are in agreement that dynastic claims should not be advanced, considering that the question can eventually be settled only in the future by the will of the Russian people." Noel S McFerran 06:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've put some references in Nicholas Romanov's articles about him claiming to be the successor to Grand Duke Vladimir and that the Almanach de Gotha considers him head of the House of Romanov. On his official website he says "In April 1992 I became the head of the Romanov Family" so he clearly considers himself the successor to Grand Duke Vladimir so to reflect this he should be put back in the article.dwc lr 15:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

French Flag?
Why is Henri, Comte de Paris, Duc de France next to only the tri-color flag? That was his symbol as King of the French. Some Legitimists regard him as the heir to Charles X as King of France and Navare which are the thrones that Louis Duc de Anjou claims and he is next to the Bourbon Flag. Since he could technically claim either form of the title (King of France or King of the French), shouldn't he be next to both flags? Emperor001 22:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to guess it's because he wouldn't be caught dead with the fleur-de-lys. The tricolor is not any longer, I think, the flag of any particular French regime, but the flag of France, and the Orléans house has accepted this for a long time, on behalf of both  of its claims to the French throne. john k 03:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Icelandic pretender?
Who would be King of Iceland today under the former succession laws? Remember, Margrethe acceded only because the Danish succession laws were changed *after* the King of Denmark ceased to be King of Iceland. Charles 03:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, on Frederick IX's death, his brother Prince Knud would have succeeded. Knud died in 1976.  His only son, Ingolf, had earlier renounced his rights in order to marry unequally, so the next  most senior dynastic branch of the Oldenburg house would have been King Olav of Norway.  However, I think the Norwegian line renounced its claims to Denmark (and Iceland), so it'd go to  Prince Gorm, son of Prince Harald, the third son of Frederick VIII.  When he died, childless and unmarried, in 1991, the position passes to, er, King Constantine of Greece.  But unless anyone has actually discussed this issue, we can't talk about it here. john k 03:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, if I knew of a good, free news service that would actually let me post (my ISP discontinued theirs) I would post the question at alt.talk.royalty and see if there is any information on it. The succession to Hereditary Prince Knud is certain according to the previous succession rules, but you're right, after that, who really can say without investigating. Charles 03:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't you just post on google groups? My understanding of the old Danish succession rules is that it was salic law primogeniture among descendants of Christian IX. But, again, I'm not sure the status of the Norwegian dynasts.  john k 07:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would, but there are privacy issues with regard to my email address being readily viewed! I will probably find a way to do it. Charles 08:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I for my part strongly oppose your insistence on labelling Christian X of Denmark, Frederick IX of Denmark and Prince Knud of Denmark as "pretenders" to a throne they never claimed (or in the case of Christian X: publicly renounced in 1944). Icelanders are very sensitive about their independence and such claims are meaningless. Any Icelander reading these pages will consider it a piece of Danish chauvinism, plain and simple, and Wikipedia isn't a political soapbox. Reading the (unsourced) section at the beginning of this page, it seems to suggest three possibilities for identifying a person as a pretender: 1) the person is the former owner of a throne but continues to claim it, 2) the offspring of the last recognized owner claims it but have never occupied it, 3) somebody else presents that claim on behalf of the offspring of last holder of the title. How does this fit on the case of Iceland? #1) Fail. Christian X denounced the title publicly and never voiced any aspirations about getting it back, #2) Fail. Frederick IX or Prince Knud never claimed it, #3) Fail. Iceland has no monarchist movement, so who should be making this claim? Given these events, I cannot see how Iceland can belong on this list. Valentinian T / C 09:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * # 3 is what would have to be established. Is there really no monarchist movement in Iceland?  It's not implausible to wonder if such  a thing  might exist, even if it doesn't in fact.  Anyway, no need to get so touchy.  Nobody is attacking Icelandic independence, and I don't think Charles wants to add such a claim unless there is some evidence that it is meaningful. john k 16:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Valentinian to the extent that Wikipedia editors should not "create" pretenders which do not already exist. If there is a published source which claims that somebody is a pretender (either by their own actions or by the actions of others), then Wikipedia should summarize that information.  But it is contrary to the No original research official policy to create new pretenders. Noel S McFerran 17:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly. john k 17:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly do not want to "create pretenders", but I do want to represent the clearest parts of the Icelandic succession (which would have occurred if the throne still exists, as with all other thrones on this page) as they are known. Had the Icelandic throne not been abolished, it is known, as with most other individuals listed in this article, that the throne would have passed with Denmark according to the pre-1953 rules. Margrethe would not have inherited any claim for the same reason Margarita of Romania cannot inherit the claim to the Romanian throne... The previous rules are frozen in place. There is seemingly little to no monarchist movement in Germany... If there is one, it is likely very tiny. But alas, we have dozens of these individuals who would be rulers or royals, some of whom don't care whether they are or not and some who do. Valentinian, you are seemingly more worried about having an Icelander insult a Dane for such a "grave" change to an article. I have more faith in the majority of Icelanders than that. I don't get my undies in a bunch when I come across several Jacobite claims or boxes although I certainly don't agree with it or see it as right to my Sovereign. However, I'm here to learn, support what is known (note, after Knud it isn't certain) and I don't bend over backwards for threats of feelings getting hurt. The Danish succession pre-1953 is very well known and noted and the Icelandic succession was tied to it. Those are both known facts. Charles 19:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * If you doubt that no Icelandic monarchist movement exist, then a simple post to WP:Iceland might solve that issue. I don't speak the language, but Danish rule in Iceland was (let's face it) incredibly unpopular. Denmark - and Christian X - treated Iceland like a step-child and the Icelanders consequently ditched us when they got the chance. When Frederick IX succeeded to the Danish throne, he removed the Icelandic falcon from his coat of arms and he his title was "merely" "Frederick IX, by the Grace of God, King of Denmark, the Vends and the Goths, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein, Stormarn, Ditmarschen, Lauenburg and Oldenburg." All titles except "King of Denmark" are titles in pretence, but the Icelandic title was never used by him. Leaving the difference in the modern and old Danish law of succession aside, provided that somebody says: "but the Icelandic law merely stated that it was the same as that of Denmark". That isn't an issue either, as Margrethe II has renounced claims to all titles except "Queen of Denmark". One more reason why Icelanders and Danes accepted this fait-accomplis in 1944. One reason was of course the Denmark couldn't do otherwise, as it was occupied by Germany at the time. However, more important was that it is actually stretching things a little to state that Iceland became independent in 1944. Icelandic independence was established (in union with Denmark) in 1918, but the Danish-Icelandic union treaty stipulated that it was only valid for 25 years, after which it were to be renegotiated. So the treaty expired by 1943 or early 1944, Denmark couldn't renegotiate the treaty and Iceland had no interest to do so. Effectively, the treaty merely expired, and this was confirmed in the Icelandic referendum on ending the monarchy. Doing so simply added the last nail to the coffin. Valentinian T / C 20:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Oldenburg titles are titles of the house, not of the realm. Monarchies have ended many times over the span of time but several of them, including Iceland, have verifiable lines of succession *if* they were still operating. Charles 20:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone please answer me this:


 * This is what we know:


 * Pre-1953, Christian X would have been succeeded by Frederick IX, who would have been succeeded by Knud
 * Pre-Republic of Iceland, the Danish succession and the Icelandic succession were the same


 * Therefore, if the Icelandic succession stayed the same as it had been (the pre-1953 Danish succession) and the kingdom was not abolished, would Knud had eventually succeeded to the Kingdom of Iceland, following these rules? Yes or no.


 * Furthermore, how are we able to continuously put people who are born into the British line of succession without explicit sources stating exactly where they are when the pre-1953 Danish succession is very well sourced and can be verified and the pre-republic succession and the Danish succession were the same (which can also be verified)? The Danish succession pre-1953 to Knud is presented here on Wikipedia as is the fact that the Icelandic king was the pre-1953 Danish king. Charles 20:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Charles, the issue is whether anybody has written about the possible Icelandic succession. It is an interesting question, but we shouldn't write about it on wikipedia unless we can find a reliable source which discusses the issue. john k 21:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Charles stop making these edits. I refuse to violate 3RR but you are seriously gaming the system trying to add your original research. The succession box for Christian X of Denmark now states: "Titles in pretence. King of Iceland. 17 June 1944 – 20 April 1947." I continue to demand that you present a credible source backing up these claims. You cannot be unaware from the discussion on my talk page that the creation of fake titles is inappropriate behaviour on an encyclopedia. The Icelandic vote had a result of 71,000 for independence, and 377 for staying with Denmark, and Danes living in Iceland participated in this vote. The issue was settled back in 1944, Frederick IX and Knud DID NOT use any such titles in pretence, nor did anybody else! Valentinian T / C 08:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And on a more general note. I notice the lack of references for the vast majority of entries on this page. Wikipedia's business isn't to invent fictional titles, and this page reminds me too much of a now deleted article about non-canonical insignia from the StarTrek universe. That one was deleted as it was impossible to verify it or in other words: fancruft, and OR. It is both relevant and encyclopedic to list the claims of the Romanovs, the former dynasties of Yugoslavia, Italy and similar where either the family or influential organizations support such claims. It is not relevant to list people that merely descends from somebody else if such a pedigree is ignored by both the person in question and everybody else. We need sources on this page so we can be sure to tell one category from the other. Valentinian T / C 08:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not created fake titles, nor have I done any original research. The results of the referendum itself is irrelevant to the existence of a titular position. The source is the pre-1944 succession. I will not comment on your selective arguments and your false accusations. Original research would be going beyond Knud in the succession. Also, most of the individuals on the pretender page fall in lines of succession with well-documented rules.Charles 08:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, funny business that I (a Dane), User:Inge (Norwegian), User:Haukurth (Icelander) + one more editor I discussed this with IRL all came to the same conclusion. So far, consensus is against you. I tried making a google search for "Knud" and "Tronprætendent" (the Danish word for "pretender"). It gave me no results at all, and Denmark isn't lacking websites about the monarchy. Valentinian T / C 08:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

To say that, under the succession laws in operation in Iceland just before it ceased to be a monarchy, Frederick IX would have succeeded Christian X in 1947, and would have been succeeded by his brother Prince Knud in 1972, is to simply state a well-established line of succession. To state that this makes Knud a pretender to the Icelandic throne is to go rather further - we need an established source that makes such a claim, just as we'd need sources to demonstrant various Bonaparte claims to various European thrones. So far as I can see, there are no such sources, so this material doesn't belong in the article. (BTW, doesn't the same logic Charles is using mean we should list Elizabeth II as pretender to Ireland? After all, she was the heir to the throne under the succession laws in existence when the republic was established in 1949. I assume nobody wants to open that can of worms.)

I will say that some of the claims presented in this article are dubious, and should perhaps be removed unless they can be sourced by other than genealogical means. I will note Courland, Crimean Khanate, Finland, Lithuania, Paul Lambrino in Romania, Duchy of Warsaw, Westphalia, Frankfurt, possibly the two Schwarzburg claimants, Etruria, Mantua, Muratist Naples, Piombino, Central African Empire, Sudan, possibly Tunisia, possibly Araucania and Patagonia, certainly the supposed Yuan pretender in China, quite possibly the two Georgian claimants, several of the claims to Jerusalem (I'd go with removing all purely genealogical claims, and keeping those who either use, or the claim the right to titularies that include "King of Jerusalem" - thus removing Anjou, La Tremoille, and the possibly entirely fraudulent Guinness, but adding the Duke of Aosta, who of course claims all Savoy titles. The note should also be changed to indicate that these people all claim the title, or claim to be the heirs of people who claimed the title, rather than any discussion of who the "real" heir of the kingdom is), possibly Korea, certainly Manchukuo, Mongolia, probably Myanmar, Ryukyu, and Singapore, maybe some of the others. I agree with Charles that a claim being advanced by others is acceptable, even if the person doesn't advance the claim themselves.  I do not accept that this claim is one which can be made on their behalf by amateur genealogists - it has to be made by actual monarchists from that country. john k 15:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mind seeing a person labelled as a pretender, provided that either the person him-/herself and/or local movements in the relevant country describe(d) the person as such, but titles like "pretender" and "prince" shouldn't be used for dubious cases. Valentinian T / C 16:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's too hard for some places with verifiable titular royalty to have locals vouch for them as some places have been under republics for so long, but the relevant sources for many of these people do exist or are there. Charles 20:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Charles - what are the relevant sources in such cases, where the individual involved does not press a claim and there is no monarchist movement supporting a claim? Are you suggesting that application of known genealogy to known succession laws gives us a pretender, no matter  what?  I'm  not sure I understand this "republics for so long" business, either.  What places are you referring to?  France hasn't had a capetian monarch for almost 160 years, and yet there are plenty of French monarchists still.  If they can still have monarchists, so can anywhere else, and there's few places which have been republics so long as France.  The dubious royalty, in any event, is rarely for places that have been republics for a long time (as, indeed, there are  few places which have been republics for more than 90 years or  so, outside France, already dealt with, and the Americas, where the only pretenders - the Mexican and  Brazilian ones - are well known and active), but due to places being conquered or incorporated into other states.  At any rate, please give an example of a country which has been "a republic for so long" that it has  lost all trace of a native monarchist movement, whose pretender does not make any kind of  active claims,  and which should still be listed here. john k 21:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Mecklenburg
Why is the Royal House for the Head of the House of Mecklenburg (Strelitz) listed as Carlow? - dwc lr 00:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How exactly is he head of the House of Mecklenburg? He is listed as Carlow because his line is morganatic, or is least cited as so, and takes its name from the comital title given to the progenitor of this line's wife. As the House of Mecklenburg is extinct there can be no members of it. Charles 01:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * According to here he is head of the House, according to Allan Raymond's Monarchies of Europe website he is head of the House. The death announcement for his aunt says Death in the Mecklenburg-Strelitz Princely House. Also when has he ever been known by the title Count of Carlow as he was born six years after Hereditary Grand Duke recognised them with the title Duke of Mecklenburg and style highness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DWC LR (talk • contribs) 11:55, August 26, 2007 (UTC)


 * I’ve provided sources that he is a member of the House of Mecklenburg unless I see reliable sources saying otherwise I’m removing Carlow from the Royal House - dwc lr 19:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I will repeat what I said on the other page: RELIABLE SOURCES? How can you say that with your Almanach waving? Should I remove the Mecklenburg title on that note? Are you denying the inheritance of titles by all male-line descendants of the original grantee?


 * Have you provided reliable sources that he is a member of the House of Mecklenburg? Charles 19:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, have you provided any sources that he isn't, no - dwc lr 19:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That fact that is he descended of a morganatic marriage and was only later given a title by a Russian pretender and was not made a member of the House by all living dynasts? Which, according to the Treaty of Wittstock, included (and includes) the Prussian Royal Family? The fact that his ancestress was created Countess of Carlow because she could not have dynastic issue? What reliable sources have you given that prove he is a member of the House of Mecklenburg? Charles 19:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Kumazawa
As I understand it, Kumazawa's descent from the Northern Court was recognized by the Meiji government, they just (obviously) didn't recognize his claim to be the legitimate Emperor Nik42 03:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * He claimed he is male line descendant of the SOUTHERN Court(also claimed he is de jure Emperor). He succeeded his adopted father, and started his claim in TAISHO Era(Not Meiji Era). And the government does not recognize that he is a male line descendant of SOUTHERN Court, so far. Motsu 10:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

German thrones
In the list of claimed German thrones, why are the principalties at the bottom? If these thrones are listed by rank, shouldn't the principalities be above the Grand Duchies? Emperor001 17:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, a grand duke outranks a prince. The order of rank for sovereigns in a system such as the German empire goes as follows: Emperor, kings, grand dukes, dukes and princes. This can be observed in the styles each ruler has as well. An emperor is styled Imperial Majesty, which outranks Majesty (kings) which outranks Royal Highness (grand dukes) then Highness (dukes) then Serene Highness (princes), etc. This is also evident in the manner in which territories were upgraded. Anhalt, for instance, was first a county, then a principality and later a duchy. Common sense dictates that a grand duchy is higher than a duchy (which was also true in practice) and therefore, as shown by the Anhalt upgrades, a grand duchy is higher than a principality. Charles 17:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Isle of Man?
Claims are one thing, but do nonsense claims belong in the chart? Rosario Poidimani is not listed and his claims are as "sound" as Mr Howe's. Charles 09:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've removed it. DrKiernan (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

India
Couldn't Elizabeth II be listed as a pretender for India as her father was the last Emperor or India? Emperor001 (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Possibly. *I* think so, same with Iceland for some of the Danish kings. But it's apparently original research so we have to leave it out until someone else writes about it. Charles 17:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Finland
Are their any sources saying Mortiz of Hesse is the pretender to Finland I've only seen a Finnish Newspaper article listing the heirs as Frederick Charles - Wolfgang - Heinrich - Philipp. - dwc lr (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the unverified Finland claim because as I've said I'm only aware of one source which does not say that Moritz is the heir. Others claimants listed in the article should also follow suit unless sources can be found. - dwc lr (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Albania
I suggest removing Giorgio Castriota Scanderbeg who claims descent from the medieval heroScanderbeg. And replacing him with Friederich August, 8th Prince of Wied who is the head of the House of Wied which ruled the Principality of Albania. Personalbest (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm opposed to this unless sources can be found for the Weid claim this look's like a similar situation to Finland although a source exists for that one. The Giorgio Castriota Scanderbeg's claim can at least be sourced. Bank worker claims Albanian throne - dwc lr (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you have to remove the Skanderbeg claim. He is an important Albanian figure. The rule of Albania by William of Wied was brief, and he was styled Skanderbeg II. Certainly, the Skanderbeg claim is more important. Also, Zog I claimed to descend from Skanderbeg. I don't think there is a problem if you add the Prince of Wied, but you should have evidence that he uses the title Prince of Albania. Rds865 (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Americas
Based on the definition of "Pretender", it seems that Norton I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico certainly qualifies. How about adding it to the list? I thought I'd mention it here... and if there's no objection in the next couple days, I'll be bold and add it myself. —Micahbrwn (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The lists only show people who are living you could perhaps mention him somewhere else in the article. - dwc lr (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah. Okay.  Carry on, then. —Micahbrwn (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe he would be considered a failed usurper, or just a mad man. The article says "A pretender is a claimant to an abolished throne or to a throne already occupied by somebody else" Since there never was a Imperial throne of the United States he could not claim it. Rds865 (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Did he have any descendants, though? Lochlyn.Christante (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, no known descendants. Charles 04:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Organization
Perhaps the table could be moved to another article "List of Modern Pretenders" and then the article would just be an overview. Also, perhaps a list of famous historical pretenders could be made. also Shouldn't the title that is claimed be listed in the table? Rds865 (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We have an article List of Royal Houses which lists everyone here plus reigning monarchs. I don't think there is room for a column to list the title claimed as we already have a lot of information in the tables. In the link to past monarchy section it notes who they descend from and the title their ancestor had when they reigned. - dwc lr (talk) 11:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * are all these monarchs? Rds865 (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Mix of heads of Houses and reigning monarchs. - dwc lr (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Mecklenburg
How can the claim to one of the Mecklenburg states be extinct but not another? Woulnd't the claim pass to either the other line or perhaps to Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia. Emperor001 (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Source?
[ http://my.raex.com/~obsidian/pretends.html http://my.raex.com/~obsidian/pretends.html ] 82.181.239.182 (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretenders in England/Scotland/Ireland
This section is a horrendous mess. When I get home tonight I'm going to see what I can do to fix it. Prince of Canadat 17:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Tibet and Nepal
—MicahBrwn (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is the Dalai Lama listed as a pretender under Tibet? Tenzin Gyatso, HH the Dalai Lama is not (IMHO) a "pretender" to the throne of Tibet, but a legitimate leader-in-exile, yeah?
 * Why is deposed King Gyanendra of Nepal listed as a "pretender" when he willingly gave up his throne when Nepal abolished the monarchy? Or has he backtracked and insisted he's still King?


 * I think probably because the Chinese government claims sovereignty over Tibet, and as such the throne is now technically occupied by the boss of China, thus making the Dalai Lama a pretender. Prince of Canadat 07:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, but what about Tibet? —MicahBrwn (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nepal, you mean? Not the foggiest, I'm afraid. Prince of Canadat 03:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought a Pretender is someone claiming a "throne", which they never had. The former King of Nepal, would be a deposed King. One could argue, that since the throne is abolished, there are none claiming it. However, while the King has relinquished power and authority, the title has not really been abdicated, and his heirs can become Pretenders, on his death, and maybe before hand. As for Tibet, the Dalai Lama, is still the Dalai Lama. While China claims sovereignty over Tibet, they don't claim the title and the powers of Dalai Lama. The Chinese Government has not said that he is not the Dalai Lama. However there are two Panchen Lamas, both which may be seen as Pretenders. 67.173.1.71 (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We do list the deposed kings of Bulgaria, Greece, and Romania. We should probably list Gyanedra as well.  As far as the Dalai Lama, while the Chinese government does not claim his spiritual authority, they do claim his temporal authority.  The Dalai Lama was both a religious leader and the secular ruler of Tibet.  That latter role has been usurped by the Chinese government.  As such, the Dalai Lama would perhaps qualify as a pretender.  john k (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Karl Friedrich of Germany, Holy Roman Emperor
What's about Prince Karl Friedrich, who is pretender on title of Emperor of The HolY Roman Empire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.86.230.114 (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a source or article on this? Also wasn't that an elective position before it got abolished? That-Vela-Fella (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth
Why is she even mentioned as a pretender to those nations she formerly ruled in Africa? Are there loyal supporters there and is she making a claim still in those places? Any source to back it up even? If not, it should be removed. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like utter nonsense. If there is a reliable source documenting an actual claim in her name in any of these countries, it can be inserted; absent that, I'm deleting all of them.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Broken table
Hi,

I tried to fix it, but it seems like it keeps breaking. The table isn't giving all the borders, and the missing borders jump around, and are sometimes there. Could someone take a more experienced look at it?

effeietsanders 08:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't seem to see what is actually broken, looks to be fine at the moment. Is there one in particular? That-Vela-Fella (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Grammar issue
The first word of each cell of a table should be capitalized, kind of like the first word after a bullet point. -The Mysterious El Willstro

King/Queen versus emperor
Some of the offices listed are not those of kings/queens but of emperors. The word "throne" may be misleading in this context, because, contrary to popular belief, an emperor is not a king. A king or queen derives his or her legitimacy from his or her bloodline, and is restricted in the sense that he or she is only allowed to choose a blood relative as a successor. An emperor, on the other hand, derives his (or conceivably her, although that is historically very rare) legitimacy from his military command, and is technically a soldier himself albeit of the highest possible rank. Basically, he is the ruler of the land because he is the supreme commander of the armed services, not the other way around as with any other type of ruler. Note that the word in English derives from Imperator, the Latin noun for "supreme commander" or "master general." While most modern emperors are instead called "military dictators," the concept remains the same. While Roman emperors often left their office to their sons, they were not bound to do so as kings are. I apologize if my 3 years worth of knowledge of Latin and Roman history bored anyone, but the etymology determines the meaning of the word "emperor" as explained, and perhaps the definition of "pretender" in this article should be amended with the word "office" because "throne" seems to imply kingship. The list becomes questionable if we favor kings over emperors in our definition. -The Mysterious El Willstro
 * This is nonsense. Emperor originally meant that in a western context.  A Chinese Emperor was always a monarch.  But from the time of Diocletian onwards, at least, western emperors were also monarchs.  In recent times, there have been hereditary emperors of Austria, of France, of Germany, of Brazil, and of Russia.  Furthermore, there are numerous examples throughout history of elective kingships - Poland, Hungary, Bohemia, Sweden, and Denmark, for instance, all had elective kings until well into the modern period.  The original meaning of the Latin word Imperator simply does not determine the modern meaning of the English word "Emperor" in any way at all.  All "Emperor" means in a modern context is that someone is trying to hark back to the Roman ideal.  john k (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying early kings used to be elected by voters? I was under the impression that elected rulers were called Presidents or Premiers, unless elected by the legislature alone, in which case Prime Ministers or Chancellors. By the way, my History 115 Professor told me that "monarchy" just means rule by only one person, hereditary or otherwise. By that definition, dictators such as Vladimir Lenin and his successors, Obote and Amene, Robert Mugabe, Momar Al Kadafi, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Oliver Cromwell and his son Richard, Mobutu Sese Seko, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussilini, Hedecki Tojo, and Mao Zedong and his successors could all be called monarchs. (Yes, I did point that out to the Professor and he confirmed the technicality.) -The Mysterious El Willstro
 * Polish kings before 1795 were elected by the Sejm, the Polish parliament. The other countries I mention had estates or diets or parliaments that behaved similarly, although I'd have to look up the details.  The Witan elected, or at least confirmed, the king in Anglo-Saxon England.  Monarchy isn't necessarily hereditary, but it doesn't just mean "rule by one person."  The key thing about a monarchy is that not just rule, but sovereignty is at least formally vested in that individual.  None of this has much to do with pretenders. john k (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Couple of different questions
1. Some abolished offices had pretenders afterwards for a while, but later still were abolished even in pretense. Consider the Byzantine Emperorship. In addition to this current list, could someone please create a list of final pretenders? 2. Are we sure that only monarchistic or imperial offices can have pretenders? This definition should still be expanded with the word "office" rather than "throne." I'm pretty sure that even though it's a republican office rather than a kingship or emperorship, there still was once a pretender to the Presidency of the USA. This pretender was named Jefferson Davis. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When did Jefferson Davis ever claim to be President of the United States ? He was the President of the Conferate States, which never claimed jurisdiction over the United States, they just wanted to run their own States the way they wanted to.Eregli bob (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For one thing, the Confederacy itself was a mere pretender to existence as a political state. For another, it was based on a misinterpretation of the Constitution, and on that ground it was probably intended eventually to replace the USA. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)