Talk:Royal family

Notability and royalty
After reading several wikis about royal members born in the past 9 years, I wondered how it is possible for these children to be "noteworthy". None of them have ever done anything noteworthy. Should members of royal families in Wikipedia, who have done nothing what so ever with there lives, have their wikis erased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leveni (talk • contribs) 17:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

no they should not. 92.39.198.209 (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

royal vs princely
{Copied from the talk page of Princely Family of Liechtenstein as a useful observation on this article's topic}:

There are two relevant, current usages of the term "royalty". One meaning is "member of a family headed by a king or queen". The other is "member of a family headed by a hereditary sovereign". The first is technically correct, but the second is in wider, common and journalistic usage. The problem with ignoring or rejecting the latter usage is not only that it relegates to royalist jargon a word already in much broader use, but there is no satisfactory substitute for "royalty" in the second meaning. "Princely" does not work, because the vast majority of princely families were merely noble, and never sovereign or semi-sovereign. "Dynastic" doesn't work because it is too poorly understood in this context. "Royalty" clearly conveys to most people membership in a reigning or formerly reigning family, and that is why it has passed into ordinary language with that meaning. Moreover, within monarchist jargon, royalty is still used to refer to members of deposed kingly dynasties, while being withheld from still-reigning dynasties such as the House of Liechtenstein and the House of Luxembourg. Thus, those who are in the order of succession to real thrones are refused, by this jargon, the description "royal", while cadets of families which lost their thrones 150 years ago (House of Orléans, Hanover) are still referred to as "royal". Since any time these individuals' actual titles are used, it becomes obvious who is and who is not technically entitled to HRH, it is not necessary to pedantically adhere to a narrow jargon in Wiki. The reference to the Liechtenstein dynasty as "royalty" should remain. It's just too late to put that genie back in the bottle. Lethiere 20:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Horledi (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Famous royal houses and dynasties
1. The population of Hawaii is about 1.2 million. Polynesians make up about 9 percent of our state's population. And out of that 9 percent, Hawaiians are a smaller fraction. Pure blood Hawaiians though make up less than 1 percent of our state's population. That being the case, why are four houses of Hawaiian nobility represented here? I don't think that such is justified. The four houses are House of Kalakaua, House of Kamehameha, House of Kawānanakoa, and House of Laanui-Kalokuokamaile. 80,000 Hawaiians have representation here, four times, and much of the rest of the world is left off of your list.

2. And Manchurians are represented twice in this category! To place the name Qing Dynasty and Aisin Gioro on this list is a duplication of the same thing. The dynasty's name is Qing and their family's name is Aisin-Gioro.

It's about time that Wikipedia editors learn more about history. Yes?

Himyaosui (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:SOFIXIT Shot info (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I grouped together the mongolian and hawaian links. Note that the list does not attempt to give proportional representation to each house, it just lists all the house articles in alphabetical order. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

3. Added Korean dynatiesKSentry(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC).

Current royal families
I have a legitimate question. Some of the families that you list here, you cite as being deposed. A royal succession is determined in many different ways, which varies with each individual nation. Some nations are patriarchal, whereas others allow for female successions. In China when a dynasty ends, the former royal family is obligated to name a prince-heir to their family throne. As it is the prince-heir that gives worship to god and prayers for the entire family or clan.

If a succession continues, the above rule is not necessary.

The king of Afghanistan left Afghanistan for Rome. A change of government regimes took place and the royal family was ousted and became no more. Yet, the king of Afghanistan was recognized around the world and three generations of the royal family lived abroad in Rome. China's royal family fled after Manchurian conquest of China. Manchurians are not Chinese. And as in the case of the king of Afghanistan, three generations lived in Hawaii-California (1871-2010).

Question: Why isn't the Afghanistan Royal Family listed? If they are not current, would they not be deposed?

Question: When a royal family is forced to flee for their lives, due to foreign takeovers of their nation or a change in government regimes, does leaving the country based on such circumstances mean that they are no longer royal? According to the Monarchist League, the foremost authority on the subject, if such occurs the family maintains their royal status. Only when they finally renounce their status does it end.

Also, please consult with the Monarchist League on the following matter and definition: A pretender is someone who makes a claim to the throne, whether legitimate or not. This is quite different from an imperial or royal succession being continued in a foreign country, due to political assassinations happening in one's own home country (as in the case of the King of Afghanistan, who was still recognized though ousted from power and living in Rome).

Before people make edits to Wikipedia, they should know facts and definitions much better than they do in order to make edits. Yes?

Rather than for me to do an edit, I thought that the proper thing to do was to bring these matters up for discussion.

Lastly, only Han-Chinese are permitted to rule China. The Yuan Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty are foreign dynasties as they are not Han-Chinese.

Himyaosui (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia users and editors need learn the distinction between term "deposed" from the term "in exile". The word "deposed" means that a succession has ended. "In exile" means that the Royal family's succession has been continued and that they are living in another country, in hiding and in exile.

Himyaosui (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I made an edit to Wikipedia today, May 11, 2010, to include my family as a current royal family. I hope that no one minds. The Zhou Dynasty, by the history of China, by court installation, and by official Han-Chinese succession is China's royal/imperial family today. We number about 300 to 600 people living in exile in the United States and about 40 million to 60 million in mainland China. In ancient times, we were known as a royal family, rather than an Imperial family. The last dynasty to rule China, which is now defunct, is the Manchurian Ch'ing Dynasty (Qing Dynasty in the Mandarin language). All Chinese have a one syllable surname. Like Chow, Ching, Chang, Ing, Lum, Kwock, Lai, Yap, etc. Manchurians do not have a Chinese surname and are know as Aisin-Gioro.

In the 1610s to 1620s a number of marriage-ties were created to join the then-ruling Ming Dynasty with the Chou Dynasty in an effort to strengthen the declining Ming Dynasty of the Chun (Chu) surname. When the dynasty fell to a foreign invasion of China, court made a decision to continue the mandate of China as a protection against foreign rule. China had just come out of foreign conquest by Mongolians and so the mandate was continued, rather than to allow it to end.

There is an official succession coming from the ending of the Ming Dynasty to present and it is found at http://zhoudynasty.freewebsites.com, my family's genealogy website. Information is also found in government documents validating my family's claims and Ming Dynasty extended court installation on 10-30-1644.

There are a few China scholars here on Wikipedia, I believe one is Leon Poon, would could, I assume, verify and agree with this private family succession as being official.

If you were Hawaiian, would you like White people governing your nation? If you were an American White, would you like to be under Black domination? The same should apply to indigenous Han-Chinese. So with that in mind, I am including my family as China's current imperial family. Our line of succession has not ended since the ending of China's Ming Dynasty (our cousins by blood on the maternal side of our family tree). http://zhoudynasty.freewebsites.com

Any discussion? The civil thing to do is to discuss a matter, than to immediately erase someone's valid and historically correct posting.

Himyaosui (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As you have been told before, you need to provide reliable sources for your claims. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

African customs
The following fascinating material was moved here from a section in the Nobility article because someone may wish to add citations and incorporate it herein. It predominantly describes and concerns customs and titles related to rulers or monarchs among African peoples rather than aristocrats (between ruling dynasties and commoners in rank), and because the privileges it attributes to members of priestly castes are arguably insufficiently hereditary to fall within the prevalent conceptions of nobility:
 * African nobility
 * With the vast majority of classical African states being either literal or technical theocracies, the rank and station of a noble was often synonimous with those of what we would term a priest. Even in the traditional and/or sovereign monarchies of today, from the muslim Morocco of the north to the tribally defined Lesotho of the south, notables who serve under their various monarchs usually act in a manner that an independent observer would recognise as sacral or sacrally influenced. This may generally be seen to be due to the inherent popularity of the notion of divinely appointed leadership on the continent.
 * In Ancient Egypt, for example, the second most prominent official after the Pharaoh himself was for long a high priestess dedicated to the service of Amun who was known as either the God's Wife of Amun or the Divine Adoratrice of Amun. She was generally expected to smoothen the succession from king to king by being the appointee of the incumbent and the daughter of the successor, and presided over the vast priestly caste of the empire which functioned as its de facto nobility. The situation was much the same in the Nubian states of the same period, with the Kandakes and their subordinates being expected to perform a variety of customary rituals in honour of gods like Isis. This system, of royals and nobles doubling as clerics in an all too real sense, is found today amongst everyone from the Swazis (who are led religiously by the queen mother, or Ndlovukati, of Swaziland) to the Ashantis (whose ruler, the Asantehene, serves as the custodian of the Golden Stool and its attendant royal fetishes).
 * Beyond this system, there is also another one where the ruler and his or her nobles will be regarded as being de jure clerics, even though their actual day to day functions are secular in practice. This is especially prominent amongst the plethora of islamic polities, where the ruler and his nobility are typically styled as either amir al-muminin or khalifa. This notwithstanding, the actual religious functions within their communities are often performed by qadis, marabouts, griots, imams, ulamah or huffaz who form a holy corps under them. This was found in the Sokoto Caliphate, in the old sultanate of Zanzibar, and in the venerable Kingdom of Morocco prior to its secularisation. Other states, such as the Yoruba kingdoms of Ile-Ife and Oyo, were also led in this manner by monarchs and nobles who were ritually (if not really) members of the clergy. The Yorubas, infact, used their polytheistic cults as agents of governance by way of their technical control by the said monarchs and nobles.
 * Outside of these rather general descriptions, the one thing to remember in all of this is that nobility in Africa is often tied to its colonial era. States that were controlled at this time by the British, say, are often in possession of strong traditional nobilities such as those of Nigeria, Ghana and Botswana. This is due to the fact that Britain is and was a monarchy, and therefore found it all too easy to operate through existing feudal or tribal structures in what came to be known as indirect rule. The French, on the other hand, were far more likely to downgrade or simply dismantle the monarchical entities that they came across as part of their republican and assimilationist policies. Due to this, while Mali, Senegal and Ivory Coast have aristocratic traditions amongst their varied tribes that run deep, the medieval nationstates that gave them to them are long since defunct, mostly due to the efforts of their former colonial overlord.
 * From the chieftains of the Beduin in the Sinai of Egypt to the princes of the Thembu in the former Transkei of South Africa, information on the majority of important titleholders can be found at the List of current constituent monarchs, Monarchies in Africa and African Traditional Religion pages.

FactStraight (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

On Improving the Article
To make the article more complete, there is a need to enrich its schema. The first part, which is a definition of the subject has to be supported by good reference materials (footnotes). Before going to the already existing sub-topics, it might be good to give some ensights about the historical development of the concept of royalty, starting with the earliest forms of monarchic societies in the Egyptian, Sumerian, and also that of Ancient China and India, which were cradles of civilization.

Then, an overview of how did the concept of monarchy evolved in various civilizations around the world, which contributed significant impact on the development of human society, will also help present a clearer idea regarding the subject in question. --Duke of Kaliburan (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @Duke of Kaliburan to make the artical most correct: Royals are dreaming Imperials, its a French word and the French were "always" Royals. the French dont have a monarchie a while now so its even strange that u call urself Royal and or Royal family cuz they aint French but ok. in the Netherlands we call the Kingdom, koninkrijk. Empire for exemple the British Empire is called Rijk in the Netherlands like het Britse rijk. many people have it wrong because they are missinformed because the ones who make the info get money to make the desinformation they are haters and do this for free and or they are missinformed as well. missinformation is used sinds the very beginning for multiple purposes. 2A02:A454:E457:1:B1BC:77EE:8085:29D3 (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

To be thorough, the article should discuss the negative aspects of monarchies and hereditary succession. There should be an explanation of how democracy has changed the workings of modern monarchic systems and the states that follow them. The article needs information on monarchies of smaller variations and forms (i.e. American and African systems. Finally, there should be a complete overall description of what a monarch is traditionally used for and their capabilities.74.33.19.132 (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Who is royal and who is not?
Moving a discussion here from User talk:Dougweller. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

== Dispute over tags at Franz, Duke of Bavaria ==

Hello - I have found myself in a bit of a hornet's nest over the issue of deposed royals and their abolished titles. The tags I put on Franz, Duke of Bavaria were taken off,you restored them, someone took them off, I put them back just now with the edit summary "These tags were restored by an admin,Dougweller, do not remove them from this article without discussion on the talk page user Surtsicna immediately removed them again with the edit summary "With all due respect, an admin does not get to add whatever he or she wants to add. The tags are definitely inappropriate. That was also the conclusion of editors responding to your question at the Help desk" . The issue I have with this article and similar ones is not just about the comma in the name of the article but navboxes with "Bavarian royal family" or whatever, there are a lot of these navboxes, and I have many many reliable sources saying that royal German titles were all abolished in 1919, and the use in these boxes of honorific abbreviations which stand for "Her/His Serene/Royal/Imperial and Royal Highness" etc. But the editors on these pages simply remove the tags I put on articles and say, as well as I can make out, that the titles do exist because people still call them by those titles. Can I ask your advice, do you think I should just drop this? And can you help in that situation with the tags on the article? I really, really think they should be on the article but do not want to edit wat. Thanks,Smeat75 (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The titles are there due to basic Wikipedia principles such as WP:Common name. You've been told that many times already. Dana Elaine Owens has never been a queen in any sense, and especially not legally, yet she is known to the world as Queen Latifah. Why don't you go over there and fight against referring to Ms Owens as a queen? As for the style, nobody should be referred to by any style (Excellency, Eminence, Holliness, Majesty, Highness, etc) in the running text, but it should be noted (in an appropriate way) that such styles are often used. Those styles seldom have any legal basis; they are never more than some gestures of politeness. The Pope does not have a legal right to be addressed as "Your Holliness", nor does Obama have a legal right to be addressed as "Your Excellency". That's a pure custom, and laws can only try to suppress customs. The laws you keep referring have failed to suppress this custom - assuming they ever even had that purpose. Surtsicna (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * " Dana Elaine Owens has never been a queen in any sense, and especially not legally, yet she is known to the world as Queen Latifah. Why don't you go over there and fight against referring to Ms Owens as a queen?" You have asked me that several times, and it didn't seem to be a serious question so I haven't answered it until now, but the reason is of course that no one could really think that person actually is a queen whereas readers could very easily be confused into thinking that the honorific "His Royal Highness" means that someone has a real royal title and should only be used on WP when that is actually the case.Smeat75 (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it was a serious question - one that you've been avoiding because it's impossible to answer it without putting your foot into your mouth. I have no idea why you assume that nobody could think that Queen Latifah is a queen but that people could think that the Duke of Bavaria is not legally a private citizen. As a person from Central Europe, I would strongly disagree with you about that. I am well aware that Bavaria is not a monarchy, but I've only learned about Queen Latifah while editing Wikipedia and naturally assumed that she was indeed a queen. Why shouldn't I have assumed that? Besides, what kind of arbitrary rules are you trying to impose? To ignore policies and guidelines when they don't suit a particular user's point of view? Surtsicna (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That person is a pop singer, I guess if someone just heard the name without knowing who she was they might think she really was a queen, there is a pop singer who at least used to be called "Prince", anyone knows he wasn't really a prince, it does not need to be clarified that King Kong was not actually a king. If Queen Latifah were to be referred to on WP as "Her Imperial and Royal Majesty", however, I would certainly dispute that. Personally, I was confused for years about the status of such people as Ernst August of Hanover and when I saw those HRH and so forth in front of their names I thought it meant they really were royal, it is only when I went to the trouble of researching it that I discovered it is all mere pretence, so I know people can be easily confused on these matters.And now I think we should stop having this discussion on another user's talk page, you are welcome as I said yesterday to comment on my talk page.Smeat75 (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia which we hope people will take somewhat seriously, would benefit from abstaining from a lot of templates and infoboxes and other usage that make it look like Wikipedia believes that people in those long deposed families still have the right to titles, to which they legally do not. Why not make clear distinctions between courtesy titles, which people do use for them, and such formaö additions to articles that obviously make those titles look legitimate, which they are not.
 * It also seems to me that any person's legal name should be included in an encyclopedic biography about h, and e.g. that if the Duke of Bavaria actually bears the legal name "Franz Herzog von Bayern" (with no comma) that should be mentioned. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Franz's legal name is right there in the lead sentence. And what kind of distinction would you propose? Wikipedia should, of course, abstain from using any honorifics in the running text. It should not refer to anyone as a Holliness or Highness, but it should mention that people use those styles. As for having a legal right to a title, I am fairly certain that there is no law in Spain that says the King's children are to be known as infantes, yet they are and have been since time immemorial. My point is that such titles and styles exist if they are used; in many cases, that has nothing to do with law. Out of curiosity, is there a law that says the King of Sweden's children are princes(ses) with the right to be styled as Royal Highnesses? Surtsicna (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ab-so-lute-ly! Thank you very much SergeWoodzing, exactly the points I have been trying to make but I started to wonder if I was way out of line, your comment has made me feel I am not. I think I am going to open a RfC on this issue in the next week or so, please keep an eye out for it (not just Serge but anyone else who reads this).Smeat75 (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting to be told what law entitles the King of Sweden's (or the King of Norway's, or the Queen of Denmark's) children to be "legally" known as princes(ses) and Royal Highnesses. You will find that no such laws exist, so I wonder if you will push for renaming those people as well. Surtsicna (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not really comfortable with having this discussion on a third party's talk page, there should be some centralized place for it, however you refuse to look at these things from the perspective of an ordinary reader who does not grasp the minutiae of all this. People could well believe, as I used to, that when they see "HRH" in front of Franz von Bayern it carries the exact significance of "HRH" in front of Charles Prince of Wales. It doesn't, you insist it does, I think you are wrong. Charles carries an official title recognised by the government of his country, Franz does not, this needs to be clear, it is very simple as Serge says "make clear distinctions between courtesy titles" and those which are legitimate. The word that royalty experts use themselves for these "people who would be royal if they still had royal families in those places" is very revealing - these are titles of pretence. They are pretending that they still have titles by the use of those honorifics, there is no reason for WP to pretend along with them.Smeat75 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, I don't see anything in WP:NCROY which specifically deals with this matter, and I would think that would be the best place for it, possibly in a section dealing particularly with BLP issues involving individuals who apparently claim such titles. It would also, of course, be useful to have some sort of idea regarding how to deal with individuals who might be seen by others as having such claims, but who have either publicly repudiated them, or otherwise publicly indicated that they do not wish to be regarded as having or claiming such titles, should such people exist of course, I don't know. John Carter (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion, John Carter.Smeat75 (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Normally anyone who is paid/subsidized by h government to represent h coutry as a royal person, and is listed as such in official publications published by h country's government, can legally claim and be considered to be a prince or princess, whereas anyone who is not, cannot. I see no benefit in complicating the matter any further than that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Smeat75, SergeWoodzing,John Carter, Surtsicna - any of you mind if I move this all elsewhere? maybe the talk page of the article, or of WP:NCROY?  Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't mind, I think you should, I was not intending to start a general discussion about all this here,WP:NCROY would be a good place for it.Smeat75 (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a need to complicate the matter further than that because the matter is not as simple as that. Princess Estelle is not paid/subsidized by any government and does not represent any country. Prince Michael has "never received a parliamentary annuity or an allowance from the British Privy Purse" and only "occasionally carries out royal duties"; Princess Michael much the same. Princess Irene is, without a doubt, a princess of Denmark, yet she has never been paid a dime by that country's government, nor has she ever represented it. On the other hand, Prince Lorenz, who is subsidized for carrying out royal duties and representing Belgium as a royal person, is explicitly described as Archduke of Austria-Este in the country's constitution - and I can hardly think of anything more official a government can publish. This matter is all but simple.
 * Of course I wouldn't mind, Dougweller. In fact, I apologize for abusing your hospitality here :) Surtsicna (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Dougweller: Since the discussion now has such argumetation as uses a less than 2-year-old-baby to prove a point about who is a princess and who isn't- "is not paid/subsidized by any government and does not represent any country" - I'm wondering if it should be moved anywhere. I am moved to bow out if points like that are going to continue to be made. Some people probably thought you were interested and might help straighten things out a bit, improve the quality of the discussion, but I can see where you, too, might be wary. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is tough being proven wrong, isn't it, Serge? According to your own definition, the 2-year-old is not a princess, and neither are the other (adult) people I mentioned. Don't blame me for putting your foot in your mouth. Surtsicna (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I seriously wish this discussion were moved somewhere else because I don't feel comfortable responding here but there are things I would like to say.Smeat75 (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is government published. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I struggled to prevent myself from commenting any further here on this third party's talk page, but lost the battle.It's no use, Surtsicna, finding all these examples, what about this, what about that, there are no reliable sources that say that Swedish or Danish or Norwegian etc. royal and noble titles were all abolished, however I have cited several reliable sources that say flatly that all German royal titles were abolished nearly a hundred years ago and I could find hundreds more, the sources do not say "the titles were abolished in a legal sense but they still exist, really, because people still use them" - no, the reliable sources state plainly and unequivocally that German royal titles were abolished. We do not argue with reliable sources on WP or find endless ways of quibbling about what they state in plain language, we summarise reliable sources, that is the whole point of WP. Sorry Doug to fill your page up with even more of this.Smeat75 (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Smeat75, Norwegian noble titles were indeed "abolished"; in fact, they were abolished a century before 1919. See Nobility Law (Norway). Smeat75, we are not supposed to interpret various national laws and come up with a conclusion that secondary sources are wrong. You were already told that national laws are not appropriate sources; a piece of legislation is a primary source, while Wikipedia is based on secondary sources. If a significant number of secondary sources refer to the Duke of Bavaria as the Duke of Bavaria, obviously so will we; if a majority style him as a Royal Highness, Wikipedia should mention that he is styled as such. It is not up to Wikipedians to decide who can be known by the most common name and who is "too royal" to be known by the most common name; I say this because, apparently, it is OK to refer to Queen Latifah as Queen Latifah, but biased to refer to Duke Franz as Duke Franz. That's called double standards; we either use common names for everyone, or legal names for everyone. I am afraid that you either do not understand that your approach woul involve a whole lot of synthesis, or you do not care about it. Surtsicna (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Who is arguing against secondary sources here? How many secondary sources do I need to cite that say flatly that German royal titles were abolished? You change the subject and starting talking about use of royal titles in currently existing monarchies such as Sweden, or Norway, or Belgium, I am not talking about any of that right now, my concern is to stop misleading WP readers by the inaccurate use of abolished royal titles from countries that used to be monarchies but are no longer such.Smeat75 (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And may I suggest that you drop the Queen Latifah stuff, it's as silly as saying that I should fight against King Kong being called a king.Smeat75 (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You can cite as many as you want, but you should not use synthesis to claim that it's wrong to refer to a Prince X as Prince X. Does it count as "legal" when currently existing monarchies recognize titles that originated in currently non-existing monarchies? We do not mislead anyone by referring to people the way sources refer to them. If you can prove that a majority of English language sources do not refer to Duke Franz as Duke Franz, please demonstrate. For example, a majority of English language sources do not refer to the daughters of Prince Luitpold of Bavaria (who will one day succeed Franz or Franz's brother) as princesses. Luitpold's daughters, princesses both by blood and by marriage, are scientists known by their professional names (Auguste M.P. von Bayern and Alice Auersperg); Wikipedia should refer to them by their professional names because sources refer to them as such. Duke Franz, however, is known as Duke Franz. It is not up to Wikipedians to "correct" facts; it is a fact that he is known to English-speaking world as Duke Franz, much like Emperor Norton is known as Emperor Norton, no matter what their legal names are/were. Surtsicna (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It baffles me why some people who are so interested in royalty disagree with a distinction being made between Pretenders and their families and those of currently reigning monarchs. I just don't get it, but whatever the reason we are here to present accurate, neutral information to the readers. I have no objection to Prince X, a member of the family of a currently reigning monarch being called "Prince X" on WP but when that title is a 'title of pretence', as the monarchist Bible the Almanach de Gotha honestly describes them, because it is a claim to an unavailable position of honour or rank then that should be made clear, as otherwise we are misleading the readers.Smeat75 (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not a monarchist. My country has not been a monarchy for more than five centuries (good luck figuring out which country that is!). What baffles me is ignoring core policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, such as WP:RS, WP:UE and WP:V. You don't mind when we refer to certain people who are not legally entitled to princely titles as princes(ses), but you do mind when we refer to other people in the same situation as princes(ses). Princess Nathalie of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg is a member of the family of a currently reigning monarch, being a niece of the Queen of Denmark. Do you think it's OK to call her a princess? Anyway, I am trying to explain that our personal point of view on the matter is completely irrelevant; if sources routinely refer to a certain Nathalie as Princess Nathalie, so do we. We do not question her right to such a name. We don't care if she is a member of a reigning family, a pornographic actress, a fictional warrior, a pop singer, or a Disney character. We refer to her the way sources refer to her. It is not up to us to correct the world. Surtsicna (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest or mean to suggest that you are a monarchist, I have no idea, I said "some people who are so interested in royalty" and I didn't mean or suggest that I was only talking about you, although you obviously are one of the people I meant as you are sufficiently interested in royalty as to have vast knowledge about it. And it is an easy thing to amend the specific article about Princess Nathalie to explain that she is referred to by an abolished royal title in official communications from the court of a current monarchy, as it is to insert a brief clarification into the articles about all the other anomalous cases you bring up. I'm sorry but your comparisons to pop singers and porn stars just seem silly to me, there is no danger of readers confusing them with real royalty but in the cases of pretenders and their families, there is. I am not on a campaign to wage war against deposed royals but for WP to present clear and accurate information to its readers, not mislead and confuse them.Smeat75 (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't take it upon ourselves to save readers from "perceived dangers", nor should we take it upon ourselves to distinguish between those we consider "real" royalty and those we consider "fakes" when sources themselves make no such distinctions. To do so would be a gross violation of WP:OR. It's easy enough to state that the subject's dynasty is no longer reigning, with no added implications. Once again, we use names used by sources, whether or not we perceive any "danger" in them. Surtsicna (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is only a talk page, it is not necessary to phrase everything with the same exactness as in article space, it was easier to type "real" than it was to type "members of the family of currently reigning monarchs, or the monarchs themselves. whose titles are officially recognised by the governments of their countries".Smeat75 (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully repeat, with some clarification:

Normally anyone who is paid/subsidized by h government (including h immediate family i.e. spouse & children) to represent h coutry as a royal person, and is listed as such in official publications published by h country's government, can legally be considered to be a king or queen or prince or princess, whereas anyone who is not, cannot. Other people, such as those belonging to former royal families - deposed such - are often treated with such courtesy that titles of royalty still are used for them, but that usage should be considered a courtesy rather than legitimate. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, is there a source that says any of that. Surely you are aware that Wikipedia cannot take your interpretation for granted. Secondly, according to your definition, Princess Irene, Queen Anne-Marie and more than half the princes and princesses of Denmark are not princes and princess of Denmark. Your definition thus needs even more clarification in order to be factually accurate. Finally, what about the Archduke of Austria-Este? He represents his country as a royal person and is listed in official publications published by his country's government, but does so (and is listed as) an archduke of Austria. Even his country's constitution describes him as an archduke of Austria. Can he "legally be considered" an archduke of Austria? Why or why not? The Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein (née Princess of Bavaria) and Archduchess Marie Astrid of Austria (née Princess of Luxembourg) are in the same situation; the former is officially referred to by her government as "Her Royal Highness" (despite any law Germany may have passed), while the latter is explicitly listed as Her Imperial and Royal Highness Archduchess Marie Astrid of Austria on the website of her country's government. Anyway, your example of "government published" is as official as this one but less official than this one.  Surtsicna (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur with Surtsicna: there is a general concept of what "royalty" or a "royal family" is, but good luck finding a reliable source that defines it as precisely as you do -- and such a source is needed to restrict use of the term here. And immediately upon reading your definition, I thought of many exceptions: princes and princesses of Liechtenstein and Monaco receive no appanage or civil list, yet they are indisputably "royal" in the sense of being titled relatives of a reigning monarch to whose throne they have rights of succession. And Prince Michael of Kent forfeited his rights of succession upon marriage to a Roman Catholic, never receives reimbursement for his public appearances, and the Queen has been pressured into charging him rent for his suite at one of her palaces, yet he has a royal title, makes numerous public appearances in his capacity as a prince, the Queen had to grant official permission for his marriage to be legal, and his descendants inherit rights of succession to the British throne through him. The point here is not to nit-pick, but to clarify: royalty has always been a complex and nebulous concept, varying by nation, culture and dynasty. You can't make it easy, because it isn't. The closest approximation to what it means is how journalists treat people (and that, too, is complicated -- most notoriously in the case of post-divorce Diana, Princess of Wales, whose brother made a world-famous speech about the fact that she did not need to be an official Royal Highness to be the People's Princess) -- and that is the standard Wikipedia applies by and large. In Bavaria, Franz, Duke of Bavaria has the right, by agreement with the Bavarian provincial government upheld in German courts, to occupy Nymphenburg Palace, to receive a state stipend for himself and members of his dynasty for as long as it survives, he is invariably treated by the media, officials and Bavarians as a celebrity based upon his royal descent. With respect to these articles, it is reasonable to insert a disclaimer for living persons, as appropriate, that any titles and styles are traditional courtesies rather than legal, which addresses the legitimate concern here. But if the intent is for Wikipedia to debunk former "royalty" as a matter of policy, that is a non-neutral POV that an encyclopedia has no business imposing on its readership. FactStraight (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is far simpler than all of that, there are a number of currently existing monarchies, in those countries members of the monarch's families use titles that are officially recognised by their countries, those people are royal. This is easily sourced by official communications from their countries. You can see who the royals are by the use of "HRH" and "HM" before their titles. There are other countries which used to be monarchies but are not now and where their governments specifically passed laws abolishing royal titles there.That is easily sourced too. These people are not royal, they use, according to the Almanach de Gotha, 'titles of pretence', they are only pretending. That is why using the same signifiers, "HRH" and so forth, for those people is confusing. I know it is confusing, because I myself was confused about it for years. Anomalous cases are easily clarified in specific articles.Smeat75 (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an arm of any government. Wikipedia refers to people by the name that is most commonly used to refer to them, and that is not necessarily their legal name. The fact that members of deposed royal families are styled as if they were not deposed is also easily sourced. What is not easily sourced is the supposed distinction you insist we make. We should not make such distinction until secondary sources start making it. Surtsicna (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * FactStraight says above "With respect to these articles, it is reasonable to insert a disclaimer for living persons, as appropriate, that any titles and styles are traditional courtesies rather than legal, which addresses the legitimate concern here." That is a very sensible suggestion and would go a long long way to resolve my concerns about the body of the texts of these articles, in fact that would clear it up, do you have a similar sensible suggestion about those templates which create navboxes and are marked "Prussian royal family" and so on with a long list of HSH and HI&RH and HRH personages?Smeat75 (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Smeat75 in full, in principle, and with the quoted suggestion made by FactStraight "With respect to these articles, it is reasonable to insert a disclaimer for living persons, as appropriate, that any titles and styles are traditional courtesies rather than legal, which addresses the legitimate concern here.". It is remarkable that two of you missed the word "Normally" at the beginning of my descriptive entry and proceeded to comment as if I am not aware that there always are exeptions to what is normal. Fantasy templates/infoboxes listing e.g. Bavarian "royalty" should be removed from all such articles, unless Wikipedia wants to be considered less than serious. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC opened on use of honorific prefixes and "royal styles and titles" in articles and templates referring to pretenders to abolished royal titles and their families
There are several issues here, for right now I have opened an RfC about the use of honorific prefixes and "styles and titles" for pretenders and their families, at some later point I may open another RfC about the naming of articles to do with pretenders and their families,so as this RfC is about use of honorifics etc within articles and templates and not in article names, I have opened it at MOS talk: Smeat75 (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Korea.
What about this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_of_Korea#Post_Korean_Empire --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2021
Lee Stephen hayes 196.168.1.004 1 russs street DL15 0RU 2A02:C7F:4783:8F00:A8A1:C4C7:964:1719 (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2022
Monarchy of Texas Royal Family KINGS 50.220.226.34 (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 08:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)