User talk:Trajanis

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Welcome and signing posts
I saw no one welcomed you, so welcome! I do want to highlight one thing the welcome banner says. When you post a comment on a talk page, sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~ at the end.

I hope you enjoy it here. There is a fair amount of bullying just as you'd find on internet forums, and if you intend to edit extensively at nobility- and royalty-related articles, be prepared. There are a lot of class-related landmines and deep republican–monarchist, unionist–nationalist, and similar divisions to watch out for. All in all, they are a good bunch, but sometimes they react poorly (but I guess we all do).

Enough rambling. Good luck, have fun, and if you have any questions, let me know. -Rrius (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much Rrius, your comments are much appreciated!

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

thank you..will do.

Order of precedence
Why did you remove the Dowager Countess of Harewood from the order of precedence among members of the Royal Family? IMO she is accorded to such place as a widow of the Queen's royal cousin (the sons of the brothers and sisters of the Sovereign's royal parent (through whom he or she inherited the throne). Women enjoy their husbands' precedence and widowhood does not change that until they remarry. Widowed Autumn Phillips should be also removed from her current place in the order of precedence if her husband dies, under the future King William V, whom Peter would be a royal cousin. It would be the same situation as with the current Queen's Lascelles cousins. Kowalmistrz (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent, there is a section in place for what I'd like to talk to you about: this. As far as I know, baronets are ranked in order of date of creation, irrespective of which baronetage they belong to. There is therefore no particular reason to divide them into baronetages, and I am certainly puzzled by your edit, which places the Baronetage of the United Kingdom on one row and all the rest on the other, as if there were some clear point of bisection; in addition, both rows link to the same page. What is the point of this seemingly redundant inconsistency? Things were simple enough until November last, without any apparent disadvantage. Waltham, The Duke of 20:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * the baronetage of England, Nova Scotia, Ireland and great Britain all overlap (and interweave in terms of dates of creation) in the period between 1611 to 1800..the baronetage of the UK takes over (from all of the previous creations, all of which cease in 1800) from 1801 onwards...


 * Your choice makes more sense now, but I still disagree. The Baronetage of Great Britain also replaced those of England and Nova Scotia, but I assume you have kept them together due to the continued existence of the Baronetage of Ireland, which is as good a reason as any but still generates inconsistency. Keeping the baronets together is the only consistent way to list them, and it also happens to be what Burke's and others have done in their tables. Yes, the UK baronetage is in use alone and the others weren't, but baronets and baronetcies exist from all baronetages (as shown in the single article that covers them), and precedence is common, with no division in ranks. Just because we can divide something into smaller parts doesn't mean we ought to*; it could lead to future excesses (division by reign?), and I believe we have good reason not to make this list more complex than it already is (same thing with numbering barons: better left to the more specialised list, if to be done at all). Its main purpose is to show precedence and its derivation, so this is the main element we ought to care about. Please, can we just keep the baronets together? Waltham, The Duke of 11:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * * I don't even want to get into "original research" territory, considering the unsourced status of most of the list, but I intend to try to change that. Waltham


 * don't you think it adds more information and is accurate in terms of precedence? otherwise, we could simply state all "knights", which would be accurate (but boring)


 * Knights are more complex because they place rank first and order of chivalry second (like peers, who do the same with peerage). I suppose it would be useful for readers if we mentioned that baronets are divided into five baronetages but that their precedence is not affected by such division as in the peerage; on the other hand, it might be confusing if we made too big a deal of it, so I've created a footnote. Without cluttering the list, footnotes are excellent tools of explanation and interpretation and are widely used as such, so I think they can serve us well here. What do you think? Waltham, The Duke of 12:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am fine with that in this instance. But I disagree that the previous wording was a "cluttering" of the list.  The purpose of these pages are to provide information (not to pedantically hide the ball)


 * One might argue that it is pedantic to mention the distinctions even though they do not affect the ranking. In any case, my main problem was the splitting of the line (a single unit, if you will, of precedence) into two; I imagine I could ultimately accept a wording like "Baronets of England, of Nova Scotia, of Ireland, of Great Britain and of the United Kingdom" in a single line, but it would be rather long and we still risked making readers think that the baronetages affected the ranking, which would again necessitate a footnote. Besides, there are so many footnotes and so much information in them (which will only increase in time) that readers cannot help but notice; we are not hiding anything. Finally, this is a list: we might provide some introductory information at the top, but if readers want to learn more they'll need to visit the relevant articles.
 * (I know you have agreed now, and I thank you, but I am trying to help you see the good side in this system.) Waltham, The Duke of 10:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Baby Cambridge's precedence
I saw your source. I read it (again). Have you read it?! It says nothing whatsoever about precedence. DBD 13:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have sourcing that Prince of Cambridge is royal...your changes have absolutely NO sourcing that a royal prince is out ranked by all the non-royalsTrajanis (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the great-grandchild of the queen has no place in the order of precedence, no matter how royal or princely! Our sources (which are examined here: www.heraldica.org) show that there is not now nor ever has been. Therefore the best place our little prince has is as the son (whether royal or not) of a Duke of the Blood Royal. I shall revert your errors again, and I do not expect you to revert me again. DBD 13:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * sorry, but I cannot accept that a HRH Prince is outranked by such myriad of commoners and non-royals without a source. The Queen has issued letter patent conferring royal status on all children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales.  I shall revert your errors again.Trajanis (talk)
 * Trajanis, you are making a basic mistake here, assuming that just because George Alexander Louis is an HRH and royal, he should be higher in the precedence, among other HRHs... This your personal opinion on that matter, and to be honest, I also think he should has his place at least after Prince Michael of Kent. However, it does not mean you or me should place him where he fits. On what basis you declare that you shall revert DBD's "errors"? His title of Prince with style of Royal Highness, or what you called his "royal status" is not a determinating factor here at all. IMO he should has his place among the other eldest sons of royal dukes, but certainly before the Earl of Ulster. Kowalmistrz (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Since this does not seem cast in iron, it's better to leave the kid out until this is settled. Preferably by the Queen. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Kowalmistrz, I do not believe I am making a basic mistake. Even the official website of the British monarchy (precedence page) states: "Generally speaking, the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of a Sovereign, as well as their spouses, are members of the Royal Family. First cousins of the monarch may also be included. Children are included on coming of age or after they have completed their education." http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/Successionandprecedence/Precedence/Overview.aspx  As such, a royal HRH great grandson of the current Sovereign certainly ranks at the Royal Family level (at the very least following HRH Prince Michael).   By contrast, George, Earl of St Andrews is a great grandchild of a former Sovereign, so I see no basis to place the new Prince George of Cambridge below him in precedence.   In any event, we shall see for certain where the new prince fits in the table of precedence at the Royal Family level when he comes of age, but it is misleading in my opinion to place him now at the level of the Earl of St Andrews.Trajanis (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That page also says that "children are included on coming of age or after they have completed their education", which seems reasonable, as the infant's precedence will practically be that of the people carrying him around. However, I am not sure to what extent this has been followed in recent years; this source includes Samuel Chatto but not his brother, Arthur, even though it has been updated (in the next page) to include the Lord Speaker (a post created in 2006). It may be that they waited for him to reach a certain age, or perhaps they simply didn't think to update that part, but in any case, the Monarchy webpage's reliability for such details may be limited, especially considering that it is a general overview. That said, the case that Prince George will rank as a son of a royal duke (at least initially) is as good as any, but I think it likely that the Queen will define Prince George's precedence by letters patent royal warrant (probably to the effect of granting him a higher rank), which would clearly settle the question. After all, his father already ranks higher in common practice than he does in the general order, which I am sure will eventually be the case with the new-born prince as well.
 * My access to the Internet is severely limited nowadays, so I don't know when I may be back for any follow-up comments, though I am interested in the matter. Waltham, The Duke of 12:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)