Talk:Principality of Sperlinga

Almanach de Gotha is not an indipendet source of material as opposed to what a lot of people believe are not present important noble families primary. Sperlinga was a little but sovreign principlity. --Alec Smithson (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Umm Not Independent. Agree FindMeLost (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree: There is no evidence that Sperlinga was sovereign. A personal opinion given here that Sperlinga was "sovereign" does not make it so: A footnote to a reliable source is necessary. The most authoritative source for princely families is Perthes' ''Almanach de Gotha. "Sperlinga" was never included. FactStraight (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The article is badly sourced, but I think that Sperlinga might have been a feudality (the article says feud and links to that word, but that's obviously a mistake in translation) under the sovereignty of the Kings of Sicily. That would seem likely to me because, whatever status it had was granted by the King of Sicily (according to the article), at the time Philip II of Spain. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No one disputes that there may have been a fief ("feud" is an obsolete version of that word) named "Sperlinga" under the suzerainty of the kings of Sicily. What's needed is clear and reliable documentation for such a lordship having been 1. a princedom, and 2. sovereign. FactStraight (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

opposition to the merger.
opposition to the merger. --Alec Smithson (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)