Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of royal houses


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Consensus is that we probably should have an article about this, but that the current content is so deficient (unverifiable, original research, etc.) that it needs to be blown up. All are free to recreate a policy-compliant list and to userfy the former content to aid in this.  Sandstein  10:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

List of royal houses

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has been tagged as lacking sources since January and as containing original research since April, but no effort seems to have been made to do anything about these issues. It does have a very very few references but lacks inline citations for almost every entry. As far as reigning monarchs go, it seems to be fairly accurate, but moves into a fantasy world of alternate reality for many of its entries, just for instance it names Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of Normandy in Northern France! on the basis, presumably of some hundreds and hundreds of years old historical claim, which however is not referenced at all. Then heads of families that were deposed from thrones a hundred years ago or more are named as "King", there are many examples of this,just at the top of the page we are told there are Kings of Albania and there is an Emperor of Austria, of course there have not been such titles for many years,it names many like that. It could well be contentious to some citizens of republics to see their country named as having a monarch, besides which it is a mess of original research and unsourced statements. I think WP would be better off without this article.Smeat75 (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC) 13:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - This article indeed lacks sources, however it could be improved, rather than deleted. Its intention was to list all monarchs from all periods, not just the current ones, so that is why Albanian and Austrian are royal houses are also listed. FkpCascais (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I have huge, huge problems with this article, and have tried to correct errors on numerous occasions, but they have been reverted by User:Director on numerous occasions.

To start: i.Several of the entries are listed belonging to Royal Houses and they have been given the wrong name. For example; the Royal House of Belgium has been the 'House of Belgium' since 1921; not 'House of Wettin' (which was the former House designation), the Royal House of the Netherlands is simply the 'House of Orange-Nassau' (and it has been ever since 1908; via decree of Queen Wilhelmina, despite the fathers of the current and last-but-one Queens not coming from this house.) The grand ducal house of the Netherlands is listed as 'Bourbon, Parma line, Nassau-Weilburg sub line'; yet Grand Duke Jean changed the name of the House from 'Bourbon-Parma' to 'Nassau' (although the House does indeed descend agnatically from the House of Bourbon Parma) in 1986 in retaliation for the Head of the House of Bourbon-Parma; Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma, ruling the marriage of Jean's son, the present Grand Duke Henri, as unequal and non-dynastic. The name now borne by the grand-ducal House is 'Luxembourg-Nassau', by grand-ducal decree. See here: http://www.monarchie.lu/fr/monarchie/droits-de-succession/annexe-au-communique-du-20062011.pdf Likewise, the House name given for the defunct throne of the Empire of Brazil is also wrong.

ii.There are several entries where claimants are given, but the family in question is extinct and no current pretender exists. There are also several entries where the House given is listed as 'extinct'-well; if the House is extinct, then there is no claimant; therefore why is it being listed? Likewise; there is no current pretender to the throne of Poland, nor is there for any of the various empires and kingdom that ruled over Haiti. Also, several pretenders for the (elective) throne of Poland are given, but; as Poland was an elective monarchy, none of these people would have any claim to the throne were the Polish monarchy restored.

iii.There are several entries where the 'pretender' given is not a pretender at all. For example, Amadeo, Duke of Savoy (the Head of the Aosta branch of the House of Savoy and rival to the headship of the entire house.), is listed as the pretender to the throne of Croatia. But not only did Amadeo's father Aimone relinquish any claims to the Kingship of Croatia in 1943 (which at any rate was an Axis puppet state and was ephemeral at best); neither Amadeo nor his father (nor anyone else for that matter) have ever considered him to be the 'pretender' to the defunct throne of Croatia. Similarly, Queen Margarethe II of Denmark was listed as the 'pretender' for Iceland; yet Queen Margarethe's grandfather King Christian X acknowledged the loss of his Icelandic throne (which at any rate was decided by plebiscite anyway) and no claims to the throne of Iceland have been made by any of his successors. Like with Elizabeth II and the loss of some of her thrones in the Commonwealth, King Christian X made no claim to or even lamented the loss of his Icelandic throne: he sent a congratulatory telegram to the Icelandic people, and the arms of Iceland were removed from the Royal arms of Denmark by his son Frederik IX in 1947. It could be argued that 'yes; but someone could view them as pretenders; it can be a claim made on their behalf' -but the monarchist movement in both countries is non-existent, and in both cases the loss of the throne was legally acknowledged, both by the state and by the Royal House.

iv. Several entries are given for entities that had no throne in the first place. For example, the various colonial possessions of Spain (the Viceroyalties) are listed; but these were only ever colonies of Spain rather than independent states in their own right that shared a monarch with Spain. Same as regards the thirteen colonies that later founded the U.S.A.: these were colonies rather than independent monarchies with their own throne. A colony is just an overseas territory of another country, not a sovereign state in its own right.

v.Several entries give the pretender to an extinct throne titles that they do not pretend to. Yes; there have been several deposed monarchs (who have thus become pretenders) who have continued to use the title they used as monarch (ex-Kings Simeon II of Bulgaria, Constantine II of Greece and Michael I of Romania are good examples); but this is common and standard diplomatic practice: a deposed monarch is allowed to use the title they used during their reign as a courtesy title; but this courtesy is not extended to their heirs (for example, when the former King Peter II of Yugoslavia died, his son did not proclaim himself 'King Alexander II of Yugoslavia' but simply used the title of Crown Prince that he had been entitled legally for a week after his birth.) There are examples of Heads of former royal houses using Monarchical titles, for example Crown Prince Leka, son of Zog I of Albania; declared himself 'King of the Albanians', but this practice is rare. Second to this; after it becomes impossible for a pretender to use a courtesy title (because they have been born after the abolition of the monarchy); the Pretender will use a title that shows they are Head of the Royal House; without using a title they are not qualified to use. Thus; for example, Georg Friedrich; Head of the Prussian Royal House is styled simply 'Prince of Prussia', and not 'Emperor Georg Friedrich I', as listed here.

In short, the whole article is misleading, not to mention the vast majority of it is WP:OR. For example, Prince Leka of Albania has never used an ordinal or claimed to be 'King of the Albanians', Likewise (as aforementioned) for Franz, Duke of Bavaria and Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia who have only ever used those titles. While there are some heads of former royal houses who do use the monarchical titles used by their ancestors (for example, Carlos, Duke of Parma or Andreas, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, this is the exception rather than the rule. Calling pretenders by titles and or ordinals they do not use is not only misleading, it's confusing and original research to boot.

Another massive; massive reason why it's not a good idea to use monarchical names for pretenders, heirs; or people who 'would be King or Queen if the monarchy still existed is that monarchs on their accession are not forced to use their first name as their regnal name. For example, George VI of the United Kingdom was christened Albert, but he used one of his middle names for his regnal name. Similarly, his grandfather; Edward VII; was also christened Albert, but used his middle name as his regnal name.King George I of Greece was born Prince Vilhelm of Denmark and George was one of his middle names, and so on.

And more to the point; what about someone like Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia? Would he be Georg Friedrich I, German Emperor and King of Prussia? Or maybe Friedrich IV; German Emperor and King of Prussia? Or maybe even Georg I, German Emperor? There are no rules in any monarchy which dictate what name the monarch has to use on their accession to the throne.

Also; what about monarchs who have adopted regnal names that are not one of their given names? King Haakon VII of Norway was born Prince Carl of Denmark and did not adopt the name Haakon until he became King of Norway in 1905 (in reference to the medieval kings of Norway who bore that name) and it was not amongst the names he was given when he was christened. Likewise; the short-reigning King Mindaugas II of Lithuania did not have that name amongst his given names; and neither did Tomislav II of Croatia.

Likewise; it would not be right to apply numbers after the names of would-be monarchs; because monarchical ordinals do not always follow logical patterns -for example; there's only ever been one Queen Elizabeth of Australia (the present one), but the present Queen is titled Elizabeth II of Australia. Likewise; there have only been seven kings of Sweden called Carl (rather than sixteen), but the present King of Sweden is called Carl XVI Gustaf. (because King Carl IX of Sweden adopted that number based on a mythical history of Sweden written by Johannes Magnus; seven of the Kings named Carl prior to Carl IX did not actually exist, and Kings Carl VIII and Carl VII were so numbered retroactively), and there are other examples as well. For all these reasons; putting someone like Franz, Duke of Bavaria as 'King Franz I' would be both WP:OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL because we cannot predict what regnal name these would-be monarchs would use should they regain the throne.

Take Elizabeth II. Her full name is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary. So; on her accession, she could have called herself Alexandra I. Or she could have called herself Mary III. Or she could have adopted a name totally at random that was not one of her given names; so she could very well have called herself Victoria II if she wanted. She could have decided to use whatever number after her name if she wanted; because the title of the monarch is part of the royal prerogative. It the purpose of wikipedia to present facts; not show people using titles they do not use and regnal names and titles they may well not use should they be lucky enough to regain their ancestor's throne. You can't just make stuff up and guess what they might be called if they were on the throne; because making stuff up and putting it on wikipedia is the very definition of what WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH is.

Lastly; the 'title rank' is whatever title rank the heir/pretender/monarch in exile actually uses. So Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia is merely 'Prince of Prussia'; not 'German Emperor and King of Prussia etc.', because he doesn't use those titles; and he doesn't use a monarchical ordinal. Same goes for Franz, Duke of Bavaria; his title rank is 'Duke', not 'King', because he's never used the title King. Ever. Neither has anyone on their behalf.

Sorry that's a bit long winded, but the whole business with the page irks me somewhat.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most or all of what JWULTRABLIZZARD has said, but is there any reason why WP should not have an article giving a list of royal houses? Ehrenkater (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The arguments JWULTRABLIZZARD presented here should be copied to the article talk page, and the editors opposing this should present their arguments there. FkpCascais (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with a comment on the article talk page: "It would imho improve if the focus was on extant Royal houses and leave out the extinct ones" and "It should also refrain from calling people King or Emperor if they are not" It is silly enough to try to decide who would be the ruler of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in the wildly unlikely event that that monarchy is ever restored, but when you move into such realms of pure imagination as "Queen Elizabeth II is pretender to Florida" and some of that other stuff, it is evident that what is going on here is just some sort of parlour game and that is why it would be better deleted, imo, and start afresh with "List of extant royal houses".Smeat75 (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ugh.. Just close this and discuss your proposals on talk. Please read the relevant policy before posting frivolous AfDs.. 212.15.182.119 (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unsourced, original research. Better to place royal houses in categories. DrKiernan (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete unless totally rewritten. Currently a mass of original research, misinformation, and bad presentation, it's going to require massive reconstruction; whether that's better done by nuking it, or if someone will step up and fix it, is not certain. The above criticisms are valid: I'd emphasise the non-standard names for royal houses, the very limited list of houses, and the inclusion of pretenders. Royal houses are an important part of history and a legitimate encyclopedic topic, and a list of them could be excellent Wikipedia content. What we should have is either a list of countries/kingdoms/monarchies and under each a list of royal houses with dates, or else a list of royal houses and under each house a list of the kingdoms they ruled (since some, like the Bourbons and Stuarts) ruled multiple kingdoms). Ideally, someone will transform this, but if consensus for change can't be achieved I don't see any value in keeping this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Stubbify for the moment, but this title shouldn't be a redlink. It's quite plausible that someone would type this into the search box, and Wikipedia should clearly have a list of royal houses.  We don't have an obvious redirect target.  With all due respect for DrKiernan, "better to place royal houses in categories" is a line of argument that's contrary to WP:CLN.  Categories and lists can and should co-exist.  Lists provide functionality that categories cannot, in that you can watchlist a list or make it sortable, and because encyclopaedia users (as opposed to editors) often find lists easier to use than categories.  And with all due respect for Colapeninsula, even when an article's current content is unsatisfactory, as long as Wikipedia ought to have an entry with this title, we shouldn't delete it entirely.  The nominator raises a number of very legitimate concerns with the list as currently written, and I would generally agree with those concerns.  But I would certainly not object to sourced additions to this list, so what we should do is reduce it to a stub to which sourced additions can be made.— S Marshall  T/C 14:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This unencyclopedic mass of original research about some of the pretenders belongs on some fantasy alternate-history website . It has proven to be unmanageable due to insistence of hobbyists about keeping in it unverifiable and often untrue statements about persons being "pretenders" to nonexistent thrones based on their descent from deposed monarchs. I have no objection to a different article being created which lists present-day royal houses and another which those which ruled at sometime in the past. It would be easier to start over with those two articles strictly limited to houses meeting those two criteria, than to deal with hobbyists who insist in the once and future royal house "pretending" to titles which the persons in question do not actually claim. and giving them original research names they might not even use if the country suddenly asked them to come and be king. Edison (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think this article is usefull (per S Marshall  comment) and should list the territories and the noble families that ruled those territories. The "pretender" part is what is causing problems here and could be simply eliminated. FkpCascais (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've already !voted above. I wanted to come back to this AfD because I'm quite concerned about 's !vote, which I think is misguided.  I think it's absolutely vital that we never delete material because of user conduct issues.  If we ever do begin to delete material because user conduct issues make them hard to maintain, then we'll be creating an incentive for some users to vandalise articles that they want to get rid of, and we'll be giving a further incentive to sockpuppetry as well.— S Marshall  T/C 12:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My concern is not "user conduct" as if I wanted to delete it because someone was vandalizing it or edit warring and it was "hard to maintain" . The first two sentences of this article demonstrate that it is designed and intended to include a blend of actual present ruling houses and wanna-be "pretending" former ruling houses. That is a flaw in the basic purpose of the article. Edison (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a problem with the article. Does it mean List of royal houses should be a redlink?— S Marshall  T/C 10:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The reason that "it is designed and intended to include a blend of actual present ruling houses and wanna-be 'pretending' former ruling houses" is because that is the way that information on such families is normally published by reliable sources, such as Burke's Peerage and the Almanach de Gotha. It is standard in the literature (as well as by ruling dynasties such as those which reign over the Commonwealth Realms, Scandinavia and Benelux) to accord deposed dynasties tradtional titles of pretence and to provide information about them in the same texts and formats as for reigning houses. What is being sought here is a novel usage of deviating from the way dynasties have been classified for centuries in favor of creating a one-off, egalitarian distinction in Wikipedia. But it's not Wikipedia's purpose or practice to demote persons and families in ways contrary to prevalent usage in the texts which most reliably and consistently report their status and membership. FactStraight (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Show me one source that says Francis II is the pretender to the throne of Ireland or Elizabeth II is the pretender to the throne of East Florida. There is a perfectly adequate list of real houses at Royal house. We do not need a second page of invented fantasy. DrKiernan (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If your real reason for wanting to delete this article is that it is duplicative, then a merge request would have sufficed. Wikipedia reports reliably sourced, notable information. In many of the same sources (you know them as well as I do) which cover reigning dynasties, you will find what you label "invented fantasy" described right alongside them and without any distinction other than the one that matters: the date of deposition. Articles don't deserve to be deleted because they are vandalized: If there are over-eager Wikipedia contributors who add in "pretenders" to Ireland or East Florida why not just delete those assertions as unsourced? FactStraight (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The entire thing is unsourced and WP:OR, and much of it is outright wrong. Removing the out-of-policy pieces wouldn't even leave a stub behind.  --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.