Talk:Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark

Untitled
Ow. Whoever wrote this, you broke my brain. How did you possibly write all that? @_x; --Eequor 21:23, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

This article is claiming a title for that "princess" that simply cannot apply; Greece has been a Presidential Democracy for years now and all nobility titles have been rendered invalid. Calling that person a "princess" is mere royalist propaganda, and its against the law and the will of the Greek people. Etz Haim 04:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I removed the notable tag because the notable tag has been deleted. Snowspinner 02:30, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * The fact is that she was born a princess of Greece and Denmark, and your objection that calling her by a title she actually had and was referred to when when alive is propaganda is ridiculous. The monarchy was abolished in 1974/5, when she was 72 years old! - Nunh-huh 03:39, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, that makes her former princess, doesn't it? By the Greek Constitution, nobility titles just don't exist. And she did lose her title when she was alive. Attributing someone with an inexistent title openly defies the Constitution, and it is indeed propaganda, extreme royalist, anti-democratic, illegal and against public consensus. If that person still has a valid Danish nobility title (I honestly don't know much about Danish titles), then this article should be named "Olga, princess of Denmark", and mention that she was a member of the former Greek royal family. Etz Haim 08:28, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The Greek constitution has nothing to do with it. Its full text relating to nobility is "Titles of nobility or distinction shall neither be conferred upon, nor recognized in Greek citizens." She was born a princess of Greece and Denmark; that's essentially her birthname; it wasn't conferred upon her after the constition. Lack of recognition is not abolition. And in 1975 at the time of the adoption of the constitution she was not a Greek citizen, having married Prince Paul of Yugoslavia. She's listed here because of Wikipedia's convention that "maiden" names rather than married names are used. When titles are abolished, it doesn't erase them from history, and you're being quite silly. You're confusing a title with an office, or with a claim to power. Someone being "Lord Mountbatten of Burma" doesn't mean he claims to rule Burma, and when Burma becomes Myanmar, he doesn't become "Lord Mountbatten of Myanmar". And Wikipedia doesn't need to start applying titles that people never had: Olga was not a "Princess of Denmark"; she was a "Princess of Greece and Denmark". In the same way that say, William, the Prince of Wales' son, is a "Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" but not a "Prince of Northern Ireland". - Nunh-huh 20:29, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nunh-huh, this is a matter of protocol with the nature of the Hellenic state irrelevent. Interestingly, ISTR that a very similar complaint over the former King of Greece occurred at the Prince of Wales' wedding, so...
 * James F. (talk) 20:40, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is completely standard to refer to members of former royal families by their titles of pretense. This is not to give credence to their claims - it is just how these people are referred to. In the case of Olga, this argument is particularly ridiculous - when she married, she was, indeed, a princess of Greece and Denmark (she presumably continued to be a princess of Denmark after 1975). After that, she was Princess Paul of Yugoslavia. The standard is to use maiden name - that was her maiden name. Similarly, we have Princess Alice of Battenberg for the Duke of Edinburgh's mother. Her family ceased to be known as Battenberg in 1917, but since she was already married, that doesn't apply to her. As far as it goes, the Greeks generally seem to utterly detest their royal family, and particularly the fact that they still claim to be the royal family of Greece. This should be discussed somewhere, perhaps in an article on Greek royal family, or some such. john k 20:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * We try to give people the names they were born with, and she was born a princess. Furthermore, even if we accepted she were an ex-princess, it would still be the highest title she ever had and would therefore apply. Deb 21:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is it considered OK to name it, "Olga of Greece and Denmark"? Refer to Naming conventions (names and titles). In particular:


 * Former or deposed monarchs should be referred to by their previous monarchical title; for example, Constantine II of Greece not ex-King Constantine II or Constantine Gluckberg, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom not the Duke of Windsor, Juliana of the Netherlands not ex-Queen Juliana or Princess Juliana.

[[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:52, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * She was never a monarch, and thus is not a deposed or former monarch -- though the point of the cited policy is that deposed and non-deposed, former and current monarchs receive identical treatment. Monarchs don't get "King" or "Queen" in their article titles. - Nunh-huh 22:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The current practice in Greece is that people who died having a nobility title, their title is valid post-mortem. This applies for Constantine's father who is still refered as "King Paul". This is not however the case with Constantine himself, who was stripped of his title while alive. Also, Constantine's family name is not "of Greece"; it's the "Glucksberg" that he unfortunately considers offensive. The Greek state offered him an alternative and he had to choose a valid name (by Greek legal standards) after his dethronement; however he chose not to. Last time he entered Greece with a danish passport calling him "Constantine Dellagrecia".

Some of the comments above express total disregard of the Greek law, constitution, and public consensus in favor of their interpretation of Wikipedia's policies. This is very sad. I don't think there's anything wrong with the policies themselves, but every policy is of limited scope and applies to certain cases only. Wikipedia's naming policies simply cannot impose names that aren't there in the real world. Etz Haim 00:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Lovely. However, this is not Greece. For clarity, we use the standard practice in the Western world (well, the US / UK / France / Germany / Spain / &c.; call it what you will), not the specific practices as used at any one point in the country of origin of the person, institution, or otherwise - these are policies for the entire globe. Thus, the correct name by Wikipedia standard policies is, indeed, "Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark".
 * James F. (talk) 00:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Names that aren't there in the real world? That's ridiculous. The members of the former Greek royal family themselves continue to use their titles (even those who have been born since the end of the monarchy). In general, we call people by the names they call themselves, whether or not the government of the country they were born in recognizes their right to use those names. john k 03:31, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is the third time I spot the word "ridiculus" on the comments above me, and I've had enough of it. Should I have mentioned how ridiculus "Princess of Greece" sounds to me, 30 years after the constitutional reform that abolished monarchy in my country? It is ridiculus indeed. However, I didn't use this word so far, knowing that I was addressing people living outside of Greece that do not know the situation here in Greece as well as I do. I used extreme courtesy and patience trying to make my point, and I would expect some courtesy in return.

Now, some people have mentioned a naming "protocol" or a "standard practice" in the "Western world". The particular point involving the "Western world" cliched rhetory is self-centered and offensive, and it's part of the broader, discriminative idealogy of the "White man's burden". It's an insult with racial characteristicts to the people of the Orient, or those who have historical/cultural bonds with it.

And what is this "protocol" after all? Is it something that applies universally and undisputedly, much like the gravitational constant? It's a set of rules that may have some form of formal recognition, by law or by Constitution, in a country that has an established monarchy. It's part of that country's royalist folklore. I don't think that France has a royalist folkore; two words for you: French Revolution. So does Greece.

So far, summarizing from the above, there are three sets of standards that could help as decide whether Olga is a "Princess of Greece":
 * Irrelevant misinterpretations of Wikipedia's naming policy,
 * "Western world" bigotry, that refuses a sovereign country its right to define its form of state,
 * The Greek law.

Why is this a difficult choice? Etz Haim 09:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I sympathise with the annoyance that Etz Haim and most Greeks feel at foreign countries which ignore their democratic decision to become a republic and abolish all titles of nobility. For ex-king Constantine to be invited to state functions in Britain as "King of the Hellenes," for example, is an insult which Greeks rightly get very angry at. However Wikipedia is not a country and does not have diplomatic relations with Greece. It is an encyclopaedia, and its policy is to refer to all people by the names by which they are or were most commonly known, without taking into account any political factors, no matter how valid those factors might be in other contexts. The fact is that Olga was, rightly or wrongly, legally or illegally, known as Princess Olga all her life, and that is the decisive fact here. The alternatives are presumably to call her either Olga Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg (her maiden name) or Olga Karageorgevic (her married name), both of which would be absurd since no-one has ever heard of those names. Etz Haim, zito singnomi alla den boro na sou stiriso me afto to zitima. Adam 10:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about? Nobody is "ignor[ing] their democratic decision to become a republic". Greece is a republic, and the rest of the world cheerfully admits that the people who hold titles of the form "X of Greece" are ordinary people in Greece, with no powers of any form there. Noel (talk) 23:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adam, thanks for your comment. My wish is to resolve this dispute in a constructive manner rather than be consumed in arguing with someone advocating the "Western world" bias. Your opinion means much to me. I wouldn't want the Greek objections on this crucial issue to be disregarded. I would expect from Wikipedia to at least provide a disclaimer saying that this article title (or titles) does not suggest a position on this particular issue of Greek politics, and it is the names these people have been using for themselves. In such a case, I would remove the NPOV tag myself. Etz Haim 10:29, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth here is my opinion. Bits of it sound trite but they aren't meant to be. Other bits will sound like total non-sequiturs - and they probably are:-


 * Firstly, names, titles and styles are merely labels - they don't have to be accurate to be used - I, for instance, have no connection with Armagh per se (apart from a similar-looking tartan), and the astronaut Scott Carpenter was not of that profession.


 * Again, Sargon I of Akkad styled himself King of the Four Quarters of the World - now I reckon that three of the quarters of the world would have disputed this, and King Hammurabi of Babylon could have had no comprehension of the Universe of which he styled himself king.


 * Conversely England and Scotland, constitutionally kingdoms within the UK, don't even get a mention in the full style of the head of state, whereas the Province of Northern Ireland does.


 * Also how many know that the bird known as 'turkey' is only called this because it was thought to be the same as another bird which originated in Turkey - it is now known that this was not the case, but it still bears the name. (One could also cite the case of the 'West Indies' in this respect also)


 * Secondly, history is always written with a bias - and it is not the job of an encyclopaedia to introduce a clinical neutrality for fear of causing offence and thereby omitting information. Indeed, the fact that from some quarters offence may be caused is itself worthy of being recorded.  Having said that, any such bias should not be covert or propogandist.  --JohnArmagh 17:39, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Etz Haim - in most countries which have abolished their monarchy, their former royalties are generally still referred to by their titles of pretense. This is not, of course, to say that Constantine II, or Michael, or Simeon are actually still the Kings of the Hellenes, Romania, and Bulgaria respectively. It is merely how these people are known. The son of the last King of Yugoslavia is generally called "Crown Prince Alexander," even though the country of which he was crown prince (Yugoslavia) no longer exists. I think all the arguments as to why members of the Greek royal family should still be known by their royal titles have been rehearsed here. It has nothing to do with Greece's right to determine its own form of government. Of course it does. It has to do with Greece's right to determine the names of its former royal family, which seems a highly dubious proposition. At any rate, with Olga, this question seems to be clear - The article is at this location because this was her maiden name. She ceased to use that maiden name long before the Greek monarchy was abolished. As such, there is no other location to put her. The basic problem with what you are demanding is that these people have no other names than "Prince/ss N of Greece and Denmark". I suppose we might call them "Prince/ss N of Denmark" but this would simply be utterly confusing. To call her "Olga Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg" is simply ridiculous - it's astonishing to me that you are claiming that the current naming standard allows names "which are not actually used" when, in fact, these names, however offensive they might be to Greek people (and however horrible a king Constantine may have been), are the only names available to refer to these people. john k 18:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

People, thanks for spending some of your time to deal with this issue. And I admit I partially agree with some of your sayings. For instance, I would agree that this is not the place to discuss the impact monarchy had on Greece; this should be part of another discussion. And it's a good thing some of you are concearned about historical bias. At this point, I wouldn't want me (or anyone else) to be consumed in arguing about someone's perception of the so-called "Western world" or every potential naming paradox on Wikipedia or the outside world. It would be better to focus on this article alone and try to adopt a formula to make it less offensive. Adam Carr's recent changes on the article are a positive step, and I have already said something about a disclaimer. Suggestions addressing this particular matter will be largely appreciated. Etz Haim 15:58, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that I've edited Adam's edits. I think calling her first by a name which she never used, and by which she was never known, is deeply problematic. She was "Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark" until she married. Thereafter she was "Princess Paul of Yugoslavia", or perhaps "Princess Olga of Yugoslavia". At any rate, there is no precedent for someone's maiden name being retroactively changed after they've married, at least that I'm aware of. I don't want to start an edit war about this, since we seem to be calming down, but using fictional constructs to name people is, I think, a terrible idea. It should also be noted that "Greece and Denmark" means just that - Greece and Denmark. All of the former Greek royal family remain Princes/ses of Denmark, even though they are no longer in the Danish line of succession. Thus, if you'd like, Constantine is "Prince Constantine of Denmark". He is certainly not "Constantine of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg" - that name was superceded in actual use when George I's father was made a Prince of Denmark in 1853. john k 22:26, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is not Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg still the family name of the Danish and Greek royal families? If it is, then members of that family should be refered to by that name, as well as by whatever titles they use. To take an almost exact analogy, we have an article on the Duke of Bavaria, which begins: "Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria von Wittelsbach (born July 14, 1933), styled as Duke of Bavaria." How do we distinguish that case from this? Adam 00:54, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The name of a Royal House is not a surname. Some royal houses have taken surnames, others have not, and in others it's not perfectly clear if they have or if so, what it is. In this case, I do not think you will find many documents that refer to "Olga Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg" or "Olga Slesvig-Holsten-Sønderborg-Lyksborg." We shouldn't assign people "surnames" because we feel they "should" have them; we should record the names they used, and were referred to by. - Nunh-huh 02:29, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would also suggest that very clearly the article on the Duke of Bavaria is wrong. His name is Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria Herzog von Bayern. Wittelsbach is not in his name at all, and his surname is "Herzog von Bayern". john k 04:09, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gah, that article was just a mess of improper names. To clarify, members of former German noble families took their former titles as surnames following 1918. Thus, the members of the Wittelsbach house have as their surname "Prinz von Bayern" (or in the case of the head of the house, "Herzog von Bayern", and of the members of the cadet branch, "Herzog in Bayern"). The Hohenzollerns have as their surnames "Prinz von Preußen". And so forth. The house names, whatever role they may have, are not the surnames of these individuals. Any article which states that their name is "Joe von Wittelsbach" or "Bill von Hohenzollern" is just wrong. The Habsburgs have a more complicated status, as their titles actually were revoked by the Austrian Republic, although most continued to use "Archduke Joe of Austria" rather than "Joe Habsburg-Lothringen"...Dr. Otto Habsburg being an exception, due to the fact that he had to renounce his claims to return to Austria. john k 04:17, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see I will have to defer to your vast erudition on this subject :) However, I have read in several places that the Wittelsbach and Stuart titles, whatever they may be, will pass to Alois of Leichtenstein when Max of Bavaria dies. Is this not so? -?-


 * Almost. When Franz of Bavaria dies, his heir is Max of Bavaria; when he dies, the claim to his titles would pass to his eldest daughter Sofie, who is married to Alois of Liechtenstein. If Sofie were to die, the heir would be her eldest child Joseph Wenzel Maximilian Maria von Liechteinstein.


 * Now for the other alteration in the article: it's inaccurate to say the Greek Constitution "abolished" titles. The constitution actually says "Titles of nobility or distinction shall neither be conferred upon, nor recognized in Greek citizens." This could be paraphrases as "stopped granting titles to, and stopped recognizing titles of, Greek Citizens" but not "abolishing titles already in existence". It does not say "It is illegal to call yourself Princess Olga of Greece"; it says we do not recognize your title. - Nunh-huh 07:51, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Nunh-huh, the preface of the Greek Constitution that states that Greece is a "Presidential Democracy" should answer your concearn. There's no empty position for the head of the state to be acquired by some future king of queen; the head of the Greek state is the President, period. The reform of the Constitution meant a radical change to the form of the Greek state that did abolish monarchy and all the nobility titles that came with it. And because of the political situation here in Greece (which is, as I've said, part of another discussion) there's no honorary mention to the former royalty. All former Presidents are still addressed as "President" for the rest of their lives and post-mortem, but the ex-King does not have that privilege any more. Etz Haim 10:26, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I know very well that Greece is not a monarchy. You impute to me a concern that I do not have, and that is because your feelings about the matter are so strong you overinterpret statements. If the UK became a republic tomorrow, and wrote a constitution which said "Titles of nobility or distinction shall neither be conferred upon, nor recognized in British citizens" it would indeed have abolished the monarchy, but it would not have abolished titles: it would have stopped recognizing titles: it's not the same thing. To abolish titles would require additional legislation (e.g. outlawing their use). - Nunh-huh 20:34, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, point taken. I had an offline talk with a lawyer that told me that the titles lesser than a King, such as a "prince" or a "princess" were never officially recognized, with an exception of Corfu's libro d'oro, if I understood him correctly. I think John K says something like this in some of his comments below. I expect some more feedback from the lawyer, so stay tuned. Etz Haim 21:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg... for most Greeks, too difficult to pronounce and too long to remember. Nevertheless, I still think it's worth to mention this. Also, as an extra piece of information, most Greeks know her as Olga Glucksburg-Karageorgevic (saving the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-thing). You should decide how to use this according to your sets of standards. But please don't get consumed in this "protocol" debate and keep in mind what I have said in my previous comments. Etz Haim 10:26, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: Bavaria, Sofie inherits the Jacobite claims. The Bavarian claims are bound by Salic law, and pass to Prince Ludwig (or, more likely, his son, since he's considerably older than the Dukes of and in Bavaria). Re: noble titles, my understanding is that there were never any noble titles in Greece, even under the monarchy. As to monarchical titles, I'm not sure how the "presidential democracy" thing is at all relevant. Clearly Greece is a republic now. And clearly Greece does not recognize the claims of its former royal family to use "Prince/ss of Greece." That does not necessarily mean, however, that those titles can no longer be used outside Greece. For instance, Austria abolished all noble titles after 1918, but the Habsburgs still call themselves "Archduke of Austria", and their usage is generally followed by, for instance, other royal courts. The same seems to be the case for the Greek royal family (where the British, I know, send out invitations to them using their royal titles, much to the chagrin of the Greek government; presumably the Spanish would as well, given that Constantine is the queen's brother...). That is to say, it is unclear if the Greek Republic has the right to prevent people from calling themselves "Prince/ss of Greece" outside of Greece...at any rate, I'm somewhat surprised that Greeks know very much about Olga at all, so far as to have a conventional name to call her. If that is what she's known as in Greece, I suppose that could be mentioned. john k 13:08, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Why is this a surprise? This is a standard for most married Greek women (see Gianna Angelopoulos-Daskalaki). In previous times, married women had to change their name to their husband's. After the progress of feminism, women can have an option of keeping their maiden name, having both their maiden name and their husband's name, or using their husband's name alone (for those who insinst on being old-fashioned). This is really a cultural issue about the secular naming practices, not much related to the royal "protocol". I'm sure Olga herself would dissaprove a name that any ordinary red-blooded Greek woman could have. Anyway, the royal dynasty in Greece was just called "Glucksburg" by the Greeks and not the full "Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg". When it comes to the question, whether Greece can prevent its former royal family from using their "titles" outside of Greece, this is a matter of balance between international law and the powerful royalist lobbying by countries such as Great Britain and Denmark. Etz Haim 13:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm surprised because the name is entirely made up, and not something Olga ever used. By the time the Greek monarchy was abolished, she had been known for decades as "Princess Olga of Yugoslavia," essentially (I think Princess Paul is an anglicism), and if she didn't stop calling herself that because the Yugoslav monarchy was abolished, it certainly makes little sense for her to stop calling herself that because the Greek monarchy was abolished. Also, what is the basis for the claim that "international law" means that the former royal family can't call itself by its former titles? john k 16:50, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Heh, of course it's not the name she used for herself. I think I've been clear about this. I think she would presumably detest being called this way, probably as much as the Greek people detest her using her title. Of course nobody did care about whether her using her title is right or wrong by the Greek law, so I assume nobody will question if this right or wrong either, especially by something trivial compared to the law, a mere "protocol". It's just the common thing. And this is a test of your loyalty to Wikipedia's policies, as one of them says that most common names should be used. Note that I'm just speaking for Greece; I'm not some self-appointed representative of the lowest common denominator of common sense in the US / UK / France / Germany / Spain / etc. Etz Haim 18:47, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...the most common name in English is certainly not "Olga Glucksburg-Karageorgevic," which doesn't even show up on google. So surely my loyalty to that wikipedia policy can hardly be under assault. john k 20:25, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * That's a matter of the principles you abide to, not your accuracy or your truthfulness. I've been assuming these two on you since the beginning of this argument. However, it's obvious that for you the protocol weighs as much the law does for me, and there are different interpretations of Wikipedia's policies as well. Etz Haim 20:50, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I decided to become bold and insert the disclaimer I've been suggesting. The discussion here is focusing entirely on matters of protocol, but my first priority is to introduce some political neutrality to this article. I hope you agree with it and continue to discuss protocol issues undistracted. Just remember, the disclaimer links to Naming conventions (names and titles), and people who encounter this should expect a reasonable explanation on that page. Etz Haim 11:32, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The notice is an insertion of politics, not a politically neutral statement. The title of the article is not a "title of pretense", but an actual title that was actually held, so the notice is, in addition, simply wrong. - Nunh-huh 22:05, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, the reason the article is titled this is because we call royal females by their maiden names. That is to say, the article is here because Olga was called this before her marriage, which was in 1923. From her birth in 1903 and her marriage in 1923, she was indisputably Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark. From 1923 to 1945, she was indisputably Princess Paul of Yugoslavia (or Princess Olga of Yugoslavia). After 1945, I suppose it depends on whether her Yugoslav titles continue, but using some contemporary Greek formulation for married women, based on a dynastic "surname" she never used, is clearly ridiculous. As to this policy/law thing, I have no idea what you are talking about. john k


 * It seems to me that it is unfairly projecting the arguably justifiable hatred many Greeks feel for Constantine onto other members of the former Royal Family which is both unjustafiable and unfair in my humble opinion - you can't condemm them all for the actions of Constantine. PMA 10:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not about how bad Constantine was as a monarch (he was bad indeed), it's the Greeks' position on monarchy as an institution. This is quite a long story to discuss it here, but eventually this will be addressed, perhaps in future article about the history of the Greek royalty, the history of the Greek constitution, or even the legacy bonds between the Greek, the American and the French revolutions. Etz Haim 15:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John, please stop flaming this conversation by repeatedly using the word "ridiculus". There are many differences between us, for cultural and historical reasons, and something that may seem pretty normal to you may be ridiculus for me, and vice versa. You have to at least try to overcome this bias and approach different ways of thinking, otherwise we won't be able to discuss anymore. Etz Haim 15:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's ridiculous for you to call my use of the word "ridiculous" a flame!! At any rate, I will try to be more pedestrian in my word choice in the future. So let me restate. "Using some contemporary Greek formulation for married women, based on a dynastic "surname" she never used, is completely unjustified." In any case, as to the monarchy as an institution, there are many countries which have abolished their monarchies. So far as I am aware, Greece is the only which particularly strongly objects to its former royal family using their royal titles outside of Greece. (Others do not recognize them, of course, although some - France for instance - actually officially recognize the use of titles of pretension by its former royal family.) john k 15:20, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The second version of your counter-argument, besides being more polite, is more specific and allows me to give an answer. Whatever is justified by a royal protocol that demands women of royalty to be addressed in that manner, is unjustifiable by the current Greek naming standards that barely consider "of Greece and Denmark" a name, and vice versa. I've been saying this before, haven't I? Anyway, this should convince you why the word "ridiculus" has no place here. Etz Haim 15:52, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Princess Olga didn't even live in Greece after 1975. So why is it relevant what she would be called in Greece? I can't imagine that this elderly member of the former royal family would have come up for conversation very frequently in Greece, in any event. And you still haven't addressed the fact that the article is titled as it is because this was Olga's name before her marriage in 1923. john k 16:29, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I can't really tell if Olga is more popular as a discussion subject inside or outside Greece, and I can't figure out why this should be relevant to our discussion. Should I have addressed issues of the royal naming protocols on the disclaimer notice? Well, it's outside of this particular notice's scope as I see it. Information about why noblewomen are called by their maiden names and not by their married names, and why it's "Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark" instead of "Olga of Greece and Denmark" can't fit into this notice, and belong to the Naming conventions (names and titles) page. There, these issues can be discussed and analyzed to extreme detail. You're obviously better than me on these things, so if you feel anything is missing from there, I'd be glad if you added it. Etz Haim 17:19, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia. As such, what Greek people call her is relevant only insofar as it influences how people speaking English refer to her. Since the way Greek people call their former royal family has never been adopted outside Greece, it is irrelevant to how she should be called in the English Wikipedia article on her. (Although the whole issue should be discussed at some proper location - there's no article yet on Greek royal family). As to the rest, I continue not to understand what you're talking about. Perhaps we have both lost the thread of what exactly we're disputing, and are arguing about different things... john k 17:57, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Let's take a break then... (edit conflict occurs) - Someone has a different opinion. Etz Haim 18:33, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed the disclaimer: specific disclaimers (rather than the generalized disclaimer linked to from all pages) are pretty much deprecated anyway, and there was much that was wrong with this one. If I can be permitted a moment of meta-analysis, it seems to me Etz is looking for a place to say "monarchy bad". This is not the place to say that. Say "monarchy bad" (or "Greek monarchy bad") in an article about the Greek monarchy, not in the article of someone who had become part of another royal family well before Greece became a republic, and whose Greek titles, when she used them, were never in question. - Nunh-huh 18:19, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * This also means NPOV is back. If I'm right, you are the one that couldn't realize why "neutrality" is an issue here and disputed NPOV in the first place. Your meta-analysis is irrelevant; I was the one that suggested that the whole of Greece's recent history shouldn't be discussed here. Now, find a way to explain to Greek people who come across this article why this is not an endorsement of royalist claims (unless you are actually endorsing them), without offending them. Etz Haim 18:33, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Not only you did remove the disclaimer, but you've altered the article to fit your own interpretation of the Greek Constitution. You've been already told that "prince/ss" weren't ever recongized, even in the time when Greece was a kingdom. You should have taken this into account. That's not boldness, that's total disregard of what we've been saying here. Etz Haim 18:44, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * This article doesn't say "monarchy good" so there is no need to add "monarchy bad" to it. All we are doing is using historically accurate titles: neutrality is not an issue. The article makes no "royalist claims"; if the fact that this woman was called Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark offends someone, other historical facts will too. We don't need disclaimers for historical facts. You seem quite confused about how titles work: you now seem to imply that the Greek constitution eliminated titles that didn't exist - and, for it to apply to Olga, retroactively, in a non-citizen. An explanation of how you think this may have happened, or some evidence that it did in fact happen, would be useful. - Nunh-huh 18:55, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm neither saying "monarchy good" nor "monarchy bad", and especially inside the main article. Perhaps you are mistaking my comments with someone else's.


 * I told you that I had spoken with a lawyer and he had told me something that I didn't know in the first place, that titles lesser than a king weren't ever formally recognized, and quoting John K "Re: noble titles, my understanding is that there were never any noble titles in Greece, even under the monarchy." (New feedback into the discussion does not imply confusion or lack of accuracy. Nobody's confused besides you.)


 * I also know that nobody in the royal family had a role in the administration of the Greek state except for the King himself. This explains the lack of state recognition of lesser nobility titles, that were in fact part of a royalist folklore that ceased to exist. Want a quote from the legislation for this? It takes time, but it can be arranged. In the mean time, remember Maimonides' "Teach thy tongue to say 'I do not know' and thou shalt progress."


 * Now, it would be useful if you explained what's that "Olga's Yugoslavian and Greek titles were thus of questionable validity in those respective nations" about, when you know that these titles are indeed invalid, either by law or constitution, and that's a historical fact. Etz Haim 19:39, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * 'Etz Haim is taking a mandatory break from this argument. See you soon. 19:39, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * What I mean: Greece stopped recognizing titles in her citizens; Olga was not a Greek citizen; therefore there is no argument by which she can reasonably be said to have "lost" her Greek title, which she was in any case not using; and Yugoslavians with titles continued to be known by them after Yugoslavia effectively ceased to exist as a kingdom in 1941 (and after the successor country became a republic in 1945). And yes, I'd love a quote from any pertinent legislation you can provide. - Nunh-huh 19:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

May I add my fourpenn'orth? It strikes me that the name of the article (and at the article of the article) must be a name that is or was actually used for that person. By 'actually used' I don't mean to restrict it to names the individual would have used herself, but rather names other people use or have used to refer to him be it before, during or after his lifetime. Nor do I mean to restrict it to names that people are entitled to use - it is what is actually used.

This, in itself, leaves a lot of options open in this case, but it does seem to close some - what she would have been styled if she were a Modern Greek is irrelevant unless modern-day Greeks really do use that name in real-life when discussing her. And here I do disagree with john k, as I'm sure there is some discussion about Olga in Greece (eg in Greek universities/schools/textbooks when discussing Greek royal history).

So in summary, IMHO, the article should start with a name that is actually used.

Then, out of all the possible names she could be called (which, for the avoidance of doubt, may include names she is not entitled to use, names she herself did not use, or names the Greek government have prohibited her being referred to as) - out of all of those names - which one should be used for an encyclopaedia article?

Answer: there are many possible answers, so an encyclopaedia chooses a style and then applies it. That is what Wikipedia has done in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). So what does that say?

Unfortunately, on this point Wikipedia is unclear. If we accept Olga is 'Royal' (which, as I understand it, Etz Haim does not), then 3.7 and 3.9 and 3.2 if the W:NC(NT) page apply (in that order). She is a past royal consort, so we use her maiden name (3.7), we use the most senior version of the maiden name [that is/was actually used]] (3.9) and we style it in the form specified by 3.2. This gives us the form: Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark.

If we do not accept she is royal, we need to look at Wikipedia: Naming Conventions. Only to find that this offers no guidance. We should also ask, is there any guidance on how we decide whether someone is Royal or not? As far as I am aware, the answer is no.

And I think this is the problem with this debate! There is no guidance to cover which of your preferred styles Wikipedia should adopt.

Where now? Perhaps Etz Haim could check how she really is referred to in Greece amongst those that do actually (from time to time) discuss her (and provide references). If, actually, despite what has been said before she is called Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark, we can leave this debate here and move on. Otherwise, wikipedia needs to add guidance on how we decide if someone is Royal or not. Jongarrettuk 20:39, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, surely people who were born as members of reigning royal houses cannot genuinely be disputed to be "royals"? If they are not royals, then there's not much point in having any convention at all. The point of royal naming conventions has little to do with whether a country is currently a monarchy. It has to do with the existence of people who don't have normal last names, and how to title articles about them. The Greek royal family, whatever else you may say about it, does not use a normal surname. As such, it falls within the bounds of royal naming conventions, even if the family is no longer reigning, and its titles are not recognized in Greece. As to the question of the title of "Prince," i have never heard that this title was not recognized in Greece under the monarchy. Certainly it was used universally for a fairly large group of people. My understanding is that other noble titles (such as the title "Duke of Sparta" which was used by Constantine I before he inherited the throne) were illegal. But I'm not sure on that. Even if it was always illegal in Greece, this makes the case even stronger - nothing changed in 1975, and these people have consistently been called "Prince N of Greece and Denmark" in English since the 19th century. john k 21:02, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Royal titles?
Aren't we not supposed to use royal titles in article titles? Maybe this is an exception for some reason. Also, this NPOV dispute seems a little stale. Very Verily 04:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Titles like "Prince" and "Princess" are to be used. King and Queen should not be used. john k 04:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the dispute tag as the article no longer appears to be disputed. Mackensen (talk) 03:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For Nunh-huh
Hi, Nunh-huh. I would like to revert this page from user 212.202.57.90, from 'screwed up'state, but I could not find your changes to incorporate them. My last change was a photo od HRH Princess Olga. --Ninam 22:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Ninam, I think the current version (except I don't see a photo) is correct...that is, I have already emoved the statements that she was Queen and such. I can't really trace where things started to go "wrong", but perhaps the best idea is to just modify the current version if there are any changes to make, like the photo. - Nunh-huh 23:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in this version we have a lot of gossips on her children, and no information on which you spent so much time to clarify. --Ninam 23:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If you can find it in the history, add it in and I'll check it to make sure she doesn't accidentally become Queen once again. - Nunh-huh 01:11, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here it is. Please check and fix what you think is correct. She was not Queen, bat very nice person. --Ninam 01:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I tidied it up. There's nothing there that I know isn't true, though I'd like to see a reference on "Chips" Channon having a thing for Paul of Yugoslavia. It's possible, I suppose... - Nunh-huh 01:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you, please, explain me <"Chips" Channon having a thing for Paul...> I do not understand. --Ninam 02:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The version you restored indicates that Prince Paul of Yugoslavia had a homosexual affair with Sir Henry ("Chips") Channon. (At least I think it does; it's a bit unclear as to whether it is referring to him or his father). Channon was certainly gay, but I'm not sure that Prince Paul was his "great love". But then I haven't read Channon's rather lengthy diaries. - Nunh-huh 02:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Me either. In addition, I do not know anything on his preferences, so in his book or in book on him there are no such objections. Considering that we speak on the deceased person who as we know did not mentioned that fact during his life, think that we could moderate that explicit statement. My English is too rusty, so please. --Ninam 03:20, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've been looking around to see if there is some reference: this page quotes Channon's diary, which describes Prince Paul as " the person I have loved most &#8230; the only human being with whom I am completely, wholly natural." They shared a house in Westminster with Viscount Gage (presumably the 6th Viscount). I still think it's not clear that they were an "item", only that Channon liked him. And Channon did name his only child "Paul". This page, which is a blog, says that Channon's lovers included Sir Terence Rattigan; Lord Wavell; the King's brother, the Duke of Kent; and Prince Paul of Yugoslavia.  I'll look further, Channon was not "discrete" in his diaries, so if it's so, it will be there. - Nunh-huh 03:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, this is The News for me. So, let that subject stays your contribution. :) --Ninam 04:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposed split
Darwinek proposed splitting the article into two separate and adding a disambiguation page, though he doesn't seem to have added an explanation here on the talk page as is customary and courteous in such situations.

Unless the section on Princess Olga Isabelle gets substantively expanded (I suppose in its current state, just about any expansion would be substantive), I strongly oppose the split. There's simply no information there to warrant a separate article page, let alone a second page for the disambiguation. Binabik80 23:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. Removing the tag and adding dab info to the top.  Kaisershatner 17:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)