Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 11

Why is it Sir for some ?
Way back in June I requested that the title Sir be included in the underlining for Sir T.B. I started a new page to differentiate between other obscure Thomas Browne's but was jumped upon for altering it. I presumed this to be some egalitarian protocol to equalise all in the hall of fame. I now notice that a user named Smallweed has helpfully begun a page on a Sir James Edward Smith all underscored for clicking onto. Why is it Sir for some, but not for others? Or are arbitary editoral decisions made at the wiki? Norwikian 08:31, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, the general policy is not to use "Sir" (or other similar titles) for any articles. As such, I think the Sir James Edward Smith article should probably be changed (and indeed, someone has already redirected it to James Edward Smith. The reason that "Sir" is avoided, I believe, is that the title generally is held by people only during a certain part of their life. As far as I know, most people who hold the title gain it during their life, rather than holding it from birth (but I could be wrong). Also, people who are "Sir" may later go on to be something higher (Lord, for example). Since titles can change, while names generally don't, it's better to stick with names. Or at least, that's my understanding - I wasn't involved. :-) -- Vardion 10:30, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * You're right that arbitrary editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia, though. Any consistency is arrived at through consensus and/or through people making things consistent by pulling articles into line. Individuals contributors are inevitably going to make decisions that aren't consistent. Onebyone 11:16, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Naming conventions (names and titles) advises against the use of Sir in the title. There was also some discussion of using the word in the article itself on the mailing list in October. See the Saints thread. Angela. 19:43, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yep, all fair logical comments and explanatory, except that in this exception case ( and don't we all as Albert Camus once remarked, consider ourselves to be an exception case) T.B. has always been referred to as Sir T.B. ever since Coleridge's day, but on the whole i agree with this egalitarian principle, so i shall drop this slight whinge, fairly satisfied with your answers, thanks Norwikian 03:09, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't think it has to do with egalitarianism. Holders of noble titles have their articles under that title.  Personally, I tend towards the opinion that "Sir" should be used in article titles, if only because it's useful in disambiguation, and many people are known primarily with their "Sir".  But that might lead to Sir Michael Jagger (which, astonishingly, somebody already created!) being insisted upon as the main page.  (For British peerage titles, it might be added, the standard is rather vague.  The general rule is that you use the highest title achieved.  Except sometimes, when you don't, as Benjamin Disraeli, not Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, Stanley Baldwin, not Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, and so forth...life peers are never to have their peerage title used...sigh). john 08:26, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * While agreeing in general with the guidance, "never" is a singularly foolish proscription to make. Take for example the current Master of the Rolls, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers. I challenge you to find any lawyer who knows what his Christian name is. Supposing it is Tom or John (I am unable to discover it even after searching Google), it would be madness to put the article under "John Phillips". Andrew Yong 18:03, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with this, but for a much larger number of life peers. While some life peers (those known well before they were made peers) are known primarily by their real names (like James Callaghan, not Lord Callaghan of Cardiff), the vast majority are known purely by their peerages. Notwithstanding the life peers who call themselves idiotic things like "Baroness Helena Kennedy" (Lady Kennedy of The Shaws) and "Baroness Valerie Amos" (Lady Amos), no one knows the first names of most life peers. If you asked most people who Charlie Falconer or James Brian Edward Hutton are, they wouldn't know, as they are almost universally known as "Lord Falconer of Thoroton" and "Lord Hutton", and yet it's the former names that their articles are under. I'd be inclined to suggest that the policy be the same as for hereditary peers - if they are known almost exclusively by their real names, use them, but the default should be the peerage title. Proteus 20:03 GMT, 17th January 2004


 * I believe that we ought to have Nicholas Addison Phillips, Baron Phillips of Worth Matravers, rather than Lord Philips of Worth Matravers, though the latter could most definitely be a re-direct. -- Lord Emsworth 02:01, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed, although possibly Lord rather than Baron, since without the ordinal Lord is easier. Andrew Yong 12:04, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * "Lord" would make it look like a courtesy peerage, and would be inconsistent with current policy on hereditary peers. It would seen odd to have "John Smith, 1st Baron Smith of London" but "Fred Smith, Lord Smith of Manchester", when both are substantive peers of the same grade, the only difference in their titles being that one is inheritable.Proteus 13:05 GMT, 18th January 2004


 * There would be no problem having most life peers at, e.g. Charles Leslie Falconer, Baron Falconer of Thoroton with redirects at, for instance, Charlie Falconer, Charles Falconer, Charles Leslie Falconer, Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Baron Falconer of Thoroton, because, unlike with hereditary peers, there is no need for a page on the title itself if only one person has ever had it. Proteus 10:52 GMT, 18th January 2004


 * I think with Tony's cronies Charlie Falconer and Derry Irvine do not stretch the convention too far. However, in other cases 1) where there is a need for disambiguation, 2) where the peer is unknown by his Christian name 3) where the peerage title is not the same as the surname, 4) in all cases where the peer is Law Lord, there should be exceptions to the general rule. Andrew Yong 12:04, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree to a certain extent with Derry Irvine (although I've heard him called Lord Irvine of Lairg more often than Derry Irvine) but I've never heard Lord Falconer of Thoroton called Charlie Falconer, and I didn't even know it was his name until I saw his article here. Perhaps I read the wrong newspapers.Proteus 13:05 GMT, 18th January 2004

Lord v. Baron
There is huge problem of inconsistency with some articles entitled "John Smith, 1st Lord Smith" and others entitled "John Smith, 1st Baron Smith". Can we put something in the article recommending the latter use, at least as a main article, with a recommended link from the former? The former seems more natural, but if you are going to put in the detail of the numeral, 'Lord' is inappropriately vague. Andrew Yong 09:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * "Lord" should definitely be used for Scottish Lords of Parliament, who are distinct from Scottish Barons (who are not peers). Probably Baron is better for others, but it is hardly ever used.  The Baron Smith is always known as "Lord Smith", including even on formal things like letters... john 09:48, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * "Lord" should be used with the ordinal in the case of Scottish peers, and without the ordinal in the case of courtesy barons. "Baron" should be used with the ordinal in the case of barons in their own right. -- Lord Emsworth 15:25, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

Listing peerage titles in the article heading
Right now, all sorts of articles, from Alfred Tennyson to Bertrand Russell to William Pitt the Elder fail to include the highest title of the individual in the article title. There is at present a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage regarding such exceptions to the convention that peers have the peerage listed in the article title. I advocate that: -- Lord Emsworth 01:53, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * All hereditary peers have the highest associated title, listed in the article title.
 * The appropriate ordinal be shown, even if the holder is the only one to have held the title, unless the title be by courtesy, or be held by a Prince, in which case the ordinal is not normally used.
 * If an individual holds two peerages of the same rank, and with the same ordinal (e.g. the Earls of Cork and of Orrey), both be listed, but if the ordinals are different (e.g. the Dukes of Buccleuch and of Queensberry), then the senior title alone be listed.
 * Articles on life peers and hereditary peers who have disclaimed the title continue to be entitled based on the individual's own name.

Proposed Alternative Rule for Royal Titles
For long I've been somewhat uncomfortable with the current standard for articles on royal figures. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, for instance, is awkward. I'd propose instead a format like that used in the German Wikipedia, of Elizabeth II (United Kingdom). This would make it easier to do things like Byzantine and Holy Roman Emperors (Henry V (Holy Roman Empire) seems better than the current Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor, which is, of course, in direct contrast to the style for other rulers. Further, since almost all these articles require a Elizabeth II in any case, it wouldn't really lead to any greater awkwardness in writing of articles.  So, I tentatively suggest this.  Thoughts? john


 * I don't see the point. What you are talking about is making what would be a minor change that would involve redoing pages and links of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages, and probably thousands of links for all royal pages for all royalty worldwide. (Baudouin of Belgium, for example, not the most prominent of world royals, whose talk page has not been used, has 42 links! George V of the UK has around 250! So that is 300 links to be checked, many of them changed, for just 2 monarchs!!! ) Getting to this point on this structure took months of work, caused major rows on the wiki-list and proved a nightmare.


 * From past evidence, re-opening the royal naming would re-open rows on larger issues, such as the demands from some fanatics in the debate to call her Elizabeth II of England, or Elizabeth Windsor, or Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia . . . . Calling modern monarchs by the form  of  is the best solution, because it allows for greater accuracy IMHO. Using the state as a disambigulation form is frankly ugly. I simply don't see the point of re-opening the issue, especially as I still remember the enormous hassle and workload involved in the last change. Now there are ten times as many articles on royal issues as there were then. And remember also, many pages when things were being renamed the last time were redirected once. Double redirects regularly break down, so you aren't simply talking about renaming the pages, a feat in itself, but then changing what at this stage would be thousands of redirects, and redirects to redirects and vast number of links, all for a frankly minor and to my mind ugly change. I think we would be crazy to go down that route again. :-) FearÉIREANN 21:37, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. Thought I'd throw it out there. I abandon the suggestion. john 21:45, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hispanic names

 * 10. People in the Hispanic world often have a double surname. The first one is received from the father, the second from the mother. However, in practice only the paternal name is used, and one should thus add them to Wikipedia under this name. In the first mentioning of the name in the article, use the full name.

Why's that? Take for example Gabriel García Márquez -- why should he be put in the Wikipedia as Gabriel García or Gabriel Márquez? I think it would be better to say here the more common form should be used with Hispanic names. -- till we *) 00:37, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * "In practice only the paternal name is used" &mdash; that's not bad as a rule of thumb, but by no stretch of the imagination is it a universal rule, particularly when dad's surname is a common one (García, López, etc.). García Márquez is a good example; so is Vargas Llosa (and wikipedians should certainly appreciate this built-in system of disambiguation). NB: On occasions, what you might think is a paternal-plus-maternal combination is actually a compound paternal surname. José López Portillo is a case in point here: it'd be absolutely wrong to refer to him as José López. User:till we *) is right that the more common form should be used.  ''–Hajor 15:33, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Famous people living in a Spanish speaking environment seldom are publicly known just by one of these simple names : Pepe Pérez, Antonio López, Juan Martínez, José Luis López... They're often known by a composed given name, or by two surnames (like Gabriel García Márquez), or by both surnames (father and mother's). An exceptional case is Spanish prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero who often uses just his mother surname (Zapatero) or even the nickname ZP (from Zapatero Presidente), since José Luis Rodríguez is too a common name in Spain. When Hispanics are famous in the States or other country where Spanish is not the first language, these tricks are not always used. This is why I found in English Wikipedia that José Luis Rodríguez entry was occupied by an article on singer and telenovela actor José Luis Rodríguez Gonzalo, El Puma. I redirected it to José Luis Rodríguez El Puma which is not simple at all. Any better idea?--Erri4a 23:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * (Above by User:Erri4a; please sign posts!) I would put "El Puma" at José Luis Rodríguez Gonzalo, with a note at Puma that "El Puma" often refers to him. El Puma maybe should redirect to José Luis Rodríguez Gonzalo... but I'm not wholly comfortable with that.  For authors, the U.S. Library of Congress Catalog is a good resource to determine the citation form of a person's name.  I don't know of a good on-line source for other people except the Google test, which doesn't work well for ambiguous or common names. &#8212;Tkinias 23:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry. El Puma is José Luis Rodríguez González, but I didn't type it well.--Erri4a 23:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. The Library of Congress is useful to find authors and give us some ideas. Anyway, it doesn't solve the problem of how to name our articles. Lib of Congress tell us that there are several José Luis Rodríguez. It uses a number (birth year?) to distinguish some of them. It's an idea, but we should look for a better one.--Erri4a 23:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lost royal titles
Let's see if I got this thing. I have adopted the policy, which I understand to be consistent with these standards, of naming royalty by their most senior title, even if they eventually relinquished it or were deprived of it, and although they might be more commonly known under a different name (from where there should of course be a redirect). Hence Prince Carl, Duke of Ostrogothia, not Prince Carl Bernadotte; Prince Sigvard, Duke of Uplandia, not Count Sigvard Bernadotte af Wisborg. This once they are dead. Living persons however should probably be listed by their most common names? Certainly it must be so in the case of Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Wermelandia, as naming that article Carl Philip, Crown Prince of Sweden would use a title that he only had for a few months while infant, and (worse, of course) risk confusion for the inattentive reader as to him actually being the present Crown Prince. Agree or disagree? --Jao 01:59, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Any policy would have to allow for very special cases, and Sweden adopting a fully cognate succession must be that unique exceptions. Otherwise, I believe the highest title should be used, but when writing an article every effort should be made to use Edward VIII of the United Kingdom|The Duke of Windsor rather than Duke of Windsor and unneccessarily redirect garryq 01:08, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Russian royalty
And yet another question from me. What article title should go for Russian Grand Dukes and Grand Duchesses? Here there are actually three issues: inclusion/exlusion of patronymic; transcription; and word order. I have used Anna Petrowna, Grand Duchess of Russia and Maria Pawlowna, Grand Duchess of Russia (in the articles of their husbands, Charles Frederick of Holstein-Gottorp and Prince Wilhelm, Duke of Sudermannia respectively). Feel free to change if there is a better way to do this. -- Jao 20:46, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * The formulation you use implies a unique title, I think. I'd prefer Grand Duchess Anna Petrovna of Russia (also, I think the "v" would be better...using the "w" is an archaic Germanism, isn't it?) john 20:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Your line seems sound, so I'm changing into it. -- Jao 12:55, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

German Noble Titles
I don't think there has been any convention on how to deal with German noble titles. Most articles seem to avoid the title entirely. Thus Otto von Bismarck, not mentioning his princely titles at all. alternate ways of doing it would be to use the German version of the title (Otto Fürst von Bismarck(-Schönhausen)) or the English version (Prince Otto von Bismarck(-Schönhausen). In present day Germany, the title is considered part of a name, which would suggest the second option as the best.  But the main thing is just to set up an official way of doing things, so we all know how to name articles. john 23:39, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't that fact about present day Germany rather be quite a strong hint that the first way is better? If a person today is, say "Heinrich Graf zu Ortenburg", this means his first name is Heinrich, and his surname is Graf zu Ortenburg, and certainly we don't translate surnames on Wikipedia? Of course it might be argued that there is still a strong notion in Germany that these persons actually are princes and counts - not being German myself, I can't really tell. If so, it might be appropriate to use that style on Wikipedia as well.


 * I just recalled using the second way myself. In Swedish Royal Family, this Heinrich's mother-in-law is presented as Princess of Hohenzollern - though formally of course it's just that her name is, I presume, "Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollern" (or Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen?). Perhaps this should be changed. -- Jao 08:51, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * As for Mr. Otto, he died before 1918, so he wasn't affected by any of this. The correct style for him would thus probably be Prince Otto of Bismarck-Schönhausen (note of, not von). - But there's also the guideline about how commonly known people are most well-known in English, and I'm pretty sure this has higher priority in this case. So, IMHO, keep Otto von Bismarck, but as an exception rather than anything else. -- Jao 08:46, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * See also the discussion on Freiherr (Talk) -- till we *) 23:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...I think for royalty we should stick with translating the names. But for nobility it's more questionable. Certainly Prince Otto of Bismarck is silly. the "Von" is commonly used in English for such individuals. (Prince Clemens of Metternich? Prince Bernhard of Bülow?  That's all rather silly). Prince Otto von Bismarck would make sense, I think, though. As far as Heinrich Graf zu Ortenberg, I think there would certainly be a sense that he is a count, even if this is not legally recognized, but I don't think this is an argument for having an article on him at Count Heinrich of Ortenburg. But I dunno. john 23:13, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Using a comma before embedded titles?
StanZegel initates a discussion:

There has been a dialogue at Template talk:German title Freiherr that we should invite more comment on, here.

The problem is that many English-speakers do not recognize some words in a Germanic name as being a title and not a middle name. (They would think, if they ever thought about it at all, that once there was a little kid named Charlemagne running around, whose mother sometimes yelled "Charlemagne, stop playing and come in for your lunch!" out the castle window.) To a more modern example: consider Georg Ritter von Schönerer. He was born Georg Heinrich Schönerer before his father was knighted, and he inherited the Ritter von during his life. Some readers may assume that his middle name is "Ritter" and so I have been thinking about ways to help the reader avoid such mistakes when reading about anyone who has such a title embedded in his name.

One thought has been to provide a standardized caution. I have created a series of templates, e.g. that places this text in those articles the invoke that template:

Nunh-huh suggested putting a link on the name, so Georg Ritter von Schönerer would show up in the topic sentence. I like that idea too, but it has two problems I have run into when trying it out: (1) You can't (shouldn't?) put a link in the article title, and (2) when there is a referral from another article to the person ([ Georg [[Ritter von Schönerer]] ) only the link to Ritter is shown as such and the rest of the would-be link is displayed as raw Wikicode. (If we do not put the link in the actual call, and use pipes do display the name with the Ritter portion linked, then the von Schönerer comes unlinked. That's probably a blessing-in-disguise, because doing those pipes would be so complicated.)

I'd like to put a proposal on the table. There are already many articles e.g. Friedrich Karl Ferdinand, Freiherr von Muffling that have a comma before the title word. Many others do not. I think the comma hints that there is something special about the remaining words of the name. I'd like to propose that we make that form a standard. (This is contrary to the Wikipedia standard on Cardinal in clerical names, but at least Cardinal is a term used by English-speakers, whereas Ritter, Freiherr, Graf, Fürst usw are not.)

Reactions? --StanZegel 01:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't really like this template, it seems kind of intrusive - I mean, if you didn't know "Ritter von..." was a title, now you know after reading one article, and you don't need to see it every time, right? The comma is a good idea, we do this for some counts and dukes, for example (like Name, Count of Whatever, although it's not like universally). Adam Bishop 07:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The QM
However logical the policy on royal nomenclature may seem, a policy which results in the Queen Mother being called Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is absurd, and therefore wrong. This ceased to be her name in 1923 and is recognised by no-one except historians. It's all very well to call James I's wife Anne of Denmark, when she was actually called Queen Anne, because she's no longer a well-known public figure. But the QM is, and she should be called by the name the current generation knows her as. So I have moved her to Elizabeth the Queen Mother to see what happens. Adam 11:07, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Dear Adam - May I suggest you read all the previous discussion on this topic before taking such a drastic step. There has already been considerable and lengthy debate over the title of this article. Deb 14:59, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have read it. Wikpedia's most fundamental structural problem is that it privileges process over product. Here we have a wonderful process which has produced an absurd product, and no-one seems to mind. That is because Wikipedia still exists primarily for its writers rather than for its readers. I repeat: calling the QM by her maiden name 80 years after her marriage is absurd, and any policy that produces absurd outcomes is itself absurd, and should be changed. For what it's worth, my print encyclopaedias call her Adam 15:13, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth, Queen Mother of Great Britain (Colliers)
 * Elizabeth, Queen Consort of George VI of Great Britain (Britannica)


 * No doubt they do - when were they published? Seriously though, that isn't the point, and you should always try to have all the information at your disposal before you "move a popular page"; furthermore, you should at least attempt to amend all the links.  In your comment above, you suggest two "correct" titles for the poor woman.  The one you moved the article to was different again, and at least another half-dozen variations have been proposed, all of which are supposedly "correct".  It's not as simple as you are implying. That's one reason why we went for an option that will remain valid whatever happens.  Deb 15:26, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's perfectly simple. Her "correct" title for 51 years was Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. Since we quite rightly don't begin articles titles with "Her Majesty" or "Queen", that leaves us with Elizabeth the Queen Mother as the "correct" title. It is not only correct, it conforms to reality in a way that "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" does not, because she was universally known as "the Queen Mother." And what does "valid" mean in this context? It certainly doesn't mean either correct or logical. Adam 15:50, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * You are full of subjectivity, Adam. What does "quite rightly" mean in this context?  Deb 15:56, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It means that in that instance I agree with the policy. But kindly don't change the subject: you haven't addressed the substance of my comments at all. Adam 16:08, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid there is no substance to address, Adam. All you have said, above, is that you don't agree with the arguments that previously held sway.  You haven't given any reason why.  Your comments are unworthy of a historian. Deb 20:02, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Adam - Of course using her maiden name is ridiculous, but is needed for disambiguation. Several Queens Elizabeth the Queen Mother exist, including another from England. However Royal Styles and Titles in the British Isles are so convoluted and changeable Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is a necessary evil.

As for Wikipedia privileging process over product. The process must exist for writers for any product to exist. Writers must remember that they should use those processes (disambiguation for example) which will produce a reader-friendly product. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is NPOV. It makes discussion over which is the highest title to use. Her coronation title as Queen Elizabeth, a style later granted by letters patent, or indeed until 1947 she was Empress of India. Do you have problems over Edward VIII? This, his highest degree, is the name used in wikipedia despite being used for only 11 months, followed by 37 years as Duke of Windsor. garryq 00:17, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Monarchical Title (Spain)
It?s been said that the Prince of Wales would prefer to be King George rather than King Charles. If we accept his right to choose adopt any name, then we must accept the right of the King of Spain to do the same. At his investiture he adopted the name ?Juan Carlos I?, and that is the name which should be used for his article. Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden is the first King Carl, others have been Karl, and only Karl X Gustav in 1654 used a similar second given name. Lists of Swedish Kings, even that from the Royal Court?s own website do not show fifteen other Carls or Karls on the throne. Yet his wiki-article is Carl XVI Gustaf British usage cannot be applied, because it is a reference to regnal numbers, internationally can be regnal, personal or some admixture ? the most extreme example being the Princes Heinrich of Reuss. To force a British usage means that the eldest son Heinrich LXVII Reuss zu Schleiz would not have been Heinrich V. Because outside Britain ?regnal? numbers may be regarded as another or an adopted given name surely the wiki-naming convention must be amended to allow local custom to be followed. garryq 00:50, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It's fine with me to have Juan Carlos I. Of course, this would require us to figure out whether first monarchs used an ordinal or not, which can be difficult.  I don't think anyone would advocate numbering the Reusses differently, or anything. john 01:20, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * As for the Swedish situation, it's a bit messy. The common practice has been to change the names of former kings into standardized forms (like Karl) - just as they are here translated into standardized forms (like Charles). To the best of my knowledge, all these Karls, at least from Karl IX on, have written their own name Carl or in latin Carolus. However, spelling should never affect ordinals. And the reason that Carl XVI Gustaf is XVI (despite being most likely the 10th Carl/Karl to have been king of Sweden) is that when the monarchs began taking on ordinals in the 16th century, they did so based on a contemporary work that was more mythological than historical. Modern historical science has, of course, not been able to change all the numbers, which only goes to show your point: the ordinal used by the monarch should be used here, too. The only exception I can think of is retroactively giving someone a I when all his successors have used ordinals (like Gustav I of Sweden).


 * So quite obviously Juan Carlos I of Spain. He is such. The guideline about not giving people I unless they have successors should only be applied for people who didn't use it themselves. (Sigismund I of Sweden, for example, is wrong-titled for this reason. Juan Carlos I of Spain wouldn't be.) -- Jao 14:59, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree. Lately we had Alexander I of Yugoslavia moved to Alexander of Yugoslavia, which doesn't make sense. He used the numeral, he's most commonly known with the numeral, and other encyclopedias keep him under Alexander I, . What could be the justification for our convention?

It is elementary logic. Hardcopy encyclopaedias have editors or editorial boards who can establish a rule and apply it. This is an open-edit encyclopaedia, with thousands of editors. That means that whereas hardcopy enclopaedias can allow individual variants because of restricted editing and because those writing individual articles are commissioned to do so because of their experience and knowledge, we have not got that freedom. Past history shows exactly what happens if we try different ordinal rules depending on what each state applied. If you put Juan Carlos at Juan Carlos I, then someone sees that and says 'oh, so we use Is' and promptly change Victoria to Victoria I, Louis Phillippe to Louis Phillippe I, Michael of Rumania to Michael I. Then someone else comes on and says 'Victoria was known universally as Victoria and only rarely called 'Victoria I'' so they change her back, then they change Juan Carlos, Louis Phillippe and Michael back, only for another person wanting to Juan Carlos to be Juan Carlos I to change them all again, someone else to change them back, someone else to change them back again. . . and so it goes on and on and on, with links screwed up, edit wars over numerals and some people in the end getting so fed up they leave wikipedia in frustration.

So applying individual local usage or ordinals for individual monarchs in an open edit worldwide encyclopaedia is utterly and completely unworkable and when tried here before caused edit wars all over the place. The rule we have to follow as an open edit encyclopaedia is simple - apply for clear blocks of monarchs one universal rule. So for western monarchs, it is the relevant one for an an english language encylopaedia - what is the normal form comprehended worldwide in english for ordinals. And that is simple. Call a monarch the first if their has been a second. If there hasn't don't. It is irrelevant what they are called in their native language as this is an english language encyclopaedia. (Other languages always use ordinals, so for example they know Queen Victoria as Victoria I, Anne and Anne I, Juan Carlos I, etc. But that is not the case in english. In our case applying ordinals to some and not to other has been proven over and over and over and over again unworkable. Those of us who tried to untangle the variations before still get shivers at the thought of all the time that had to be devoted to stopping edit wars and constantly repairing broken links caused by endless moving of articles. FearÉIREANN 18:23, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm... We have redirects, the article for each country's monarchy has a talk page, the article for each monarch has a talk page. Unless there's evidence that the usage of without the numeral is standard in English in general (especially in reference books and not just in the UK), there's no reason to adopt a one-size-fits-all convention. I think that we should look into why other encyclopedias keep monarchs where they keep them. Zocky 15:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

British queen consorts vs. other European consorts
Why do we drop the "Princess" title for British Queen consorts (eg Alexandra of Denmark instead of Princess Alexandra of Denmark), while keeping them for other monarchies (eg Princess Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg and not Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg)? Why remove them at all?--Jiang 09:25, 16 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The policy is to always remove them, so the Spanish article seems to be misplaced. And I think the reason for removing it is that historical queen consorts are (at least in most countries) most often referred to in that way. I'm not sure it's the best way, though. Vis-à-vis putting them at their queen names, I think there was also the argument that they were less likely to need disambiguation this way. I don't actually see that it is so. An example of the opposite: I have no idea where to place the first spouse of Sigismund III of Poland-Lithuania if she is to have an article – Anna of Austria is already taken. Ah, well.. While Queen Anna of Sweden or Queen Anna of Poland-Lithuania would be quite unique. So that argument would work both ways..

Anna of Austria is a redirect. I think it should be disambiguation - there have been other notable Annas of Austria, as, for instance, Philip II's last wife. john 15:42, 16 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. Deb 17:11, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Former monarchs still alive
I would like to change No. 6 of Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29. For monarchs who have formally abdicated and are still alive, or who are usually referred to using non-royal titles (e.g. Simeon Saxe-Coburg Gotha), we should go by whatever they're currently known as and revert to the royal title only after they die. We have queen consorts under sovereign titles (Sofia of Spain) instead of maiden names. Why not put people where they're commonly known as? --Jiang 08:20, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Sofia isn't a good example, as that article is clearly wrongly titled. I think your suggestion, though on the surface it might seem reasonable, requires a lot of thought. Deb 17:08, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * See no. 8 of Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29. If that's wrong, then let's change it. --Jiang 21:19, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How many cases are we talking about? Besides Simeon, are there any currently alive who do not go by their royal title? Both King Michael and King Constantine use theirs - I'm not sure what former Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg goes by. (I'd have strongly objected to moving Juliana of the Netherlands to Princess Juliana of the Netherlands while she was alive.) john k 19:40, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I can't think of any cases other than Simeon. I don't see the logic behind the objection. --Jiang 21:19, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Which objection? A general objection (which I did not make), or the hypothetical objection about Juliana? john k 21:37, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm interested to hear how that case is different from the general case of living former monarchs.--Jiang 10:48, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

French titles
Conversation moved from User talk:John Kenney and User talk:Muriel Gottrop:

Hi John! Assuming you are a sysop (not sure), can you delete Charles, Duke of Orléans for me? Its just a redirect and i want to move a page there. Thanks, Muriel G 16:03, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Muriel, in terms of the Charles, Duke of Orleans, I think that we need to figure out how article on the French nobility should be titled. My opinion is that they should be at Firstname (Surname), frenchnobletitle de Title, rather than Firstname (Surname), Englishnobletitle of Title. But I think a consistent or semi-consistent system needs to be worked out, as we have for the English nobility. So, no, I won't delete the page now, because I don't think it should be moved there. If we can come to some sort of system that says the article should be there, I'd be happy to do so. Perhaps I should open discussion at Naming Conventions (Names and Titles), or whatever the page is called? My attempt to do something similar for German noble titles there, which was largely ignored, somewhat discouraged me, though. john '''k 18:52, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Dear John, i'm afraid i have to disagree with you on this Firstname (Surname), frenchnobletitle de Title, because i rather have the English version, because this is a English Language encyclopaedia. The Duchesse du Berry and the Comte de Anjou s place are in the French wikipedia, as well as the Herzog von Sachsen und der Graf von Pfalz in the German one. When I'm back in Europe, i'll have a look in the Naming Conventions. Muriel G 13:37, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi John! I had a look on the Naming conventions. The foreign titles are not specified. I only saw instructions for english peers. They go like Henry Foot-Tootsie, 11th Baron Purpleberries. I would not like to adopt this, say, for the Duchies in continental europe. I dont like it either with foreign names like Duchesse du Berry oder Herzog von Sachsen. This, in my opinion, makes no sense in an english encyclopaedia and its a potential maintenance problem, because new articles are likely to be created according to english names. I agree with you, when you say that whatever convention, it should be consistent. Why do you prefer to use French titles here?, if i may ask. Cheers, Muriel G 13:54, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The German titles, I'd agree, are not generally used in English (at least before the abolition of noble titles when they became part of the name). However, for French noble titles, the French titles are very fequently used in English. Certainly for non-royals. We speak of the "Marquis de Lafayette," not the "Marquess of Lafayette." The "Duc de Broglie," not the "Duke of Broglie." Certainly I've never even seen "Count of Provence" and "Count of Artois" to refer to Louis XVI's brothers. Will and Ariel Durant, for instance, use the French noble titles exclusively (including for the Duc d'Orleans). Essentially, different foreign languages have different levels of familiarity in English. The Romance languages are almost certainly the most familiar, and they are also the languages where noble titles are the most similar to those in English. As such, it is common (and increasingly more common) to use the native language titles in Spanish, Italian, and especially French. Where both usages are common, I think we should stick to the native usage. I'd add that Encarta and Columbia use French titles exclusively. Britannica gives both (one in parentheses), and somewhat inconsistently, but seems to prefer the French titles. john k 17:31, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Dear John, first i am glad you agree with me on the german titles!! Second, I understand your point: you want to follow the more traditional conventions, like the sources you cited (and i suspect that Duke of Orleans and Count of Artois give you the creeps, because you are not used to it). But put yourself into an (meaning not a scholar in History like you, or an interested amateur like me) ordinary user's position, while searching the internet, especially if they dont know French. The use of French titles is confusing (and in my own POV, ugly, but thats beside the matter) and might lead to unsuccessful searches. Anyway, either with the French convention or the English one, we do need a convention. Do you know the opinions of other users? Do you think this deserves a poll? Cheers, Muriel G 14:54, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * As to the general issue, I think my point was that use of the French titles is standard in English, and that the Wikipedia should follow standard English practice (used by other encyclopedias), rather than babying its readers and assuming they'll be confused by the standard way that French noble titles are referred to. I mean, one might just as easily argue that English-speakers will be confused by the use of French or German given names, and that we should translate these into English.  Clearly, though, we should have redirects, and we should try to take care to explain the French titles somewhere.  I would agree that perhaps earlier titles that are actually associated with rule of a particular region, rather than just being noble titles, should perhaps be treated differently.  But I really don't see how using the convention that is generally used in English would be particularly confusing to readers.  But perhaps we should take this to a naming conventions page and invite the participation of others. john k 16:05, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Why do I think it would be confusing: Do you want to translate every French title or just some? Do you want to mix Duc d'Orléans and Duke of Burgundy in the same article (cf. John, Duke of Burgundy)? If not, do you suggest to change to Duc de Bourgogne? Hope not :) What I would like to see: keep, as you said, the earlier titles in English (Burgundy, Aquitaine, Lorraine, Bourbon, Vendôme, etc). The later titles, around the Revolution Era, could be in English (for the sake of uniformity), with bolded French translation immediately after the English name, since you say that this is more acording to other sources. What would you like to see? Muriel G 08:17, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I see the thing with "Duc de Bourgogne" - unlike most of the other things, the convention is generally to translate this into English. I'd note that I certainly don't want to translate every French title - that is what you want to do. I would say that titles below "Count" should always be in French. Titles of Count or higher should be in English only for people who are actually rulers of the territory in question. So Dukes of Burgundy, Dukes of Bourbon (up to 1527), Dukes of Orleans (up to 1498), Dukes of Normandy, and so forth, should all be in English. Titles which don't relate to actual territorial rule should not be translated. This is, I think, relatively non-confusing, and reasonably close to the usual standard of English language use, anyway. john k 09:38, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with your suggestion, seems a good compromise between the established French titles and reasonability. If we are going to make this a convention, shouldnt we ask for other people's opinion? Muriel G 17:20, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I thought the move here was implicitly asking for other people's opinions. At any rate, who works on these types of pages who could perhaps be contacted through their talk page to give an opinion? I know of a lot of people who work on English language nobility, but can't really think of anyone who's done French stuff. Who works on early modern/medieval French history articles? john k 20:30, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * As far as i know just Adam Bishop (great job in organizing the Rulers of Auvergne) and i already left him a message. Muriel G 09:43, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Using French titles for non-Sovereign nobles seems good to me, but I have one small point: I know the French generally don't capitalise the rank ("Jean Smith, duc de Smith" or what not), but it generally is capitalised when it's transferred to English, so we talk of "the Marquis de Sade", not "the marquis de Sade". Everything else, though, seems perfectly reasonable. Proteus (Talk) 08:47, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

When we talk about them, yes, we capitalise and say "the Marquis de Sade." But encyclopedias, and indices, and so forth, when writing out the full name, generally hold to the French convention of not capitalizing. I'd add that even for English titles, one doesn't always capitalize the rank - I've read various books which follow this convention. john k 16:06, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd rather we followed normal English usage than the usage of other encyclopaedias, and it would seem rather odd to me to talk of "the Marquis de Somewhere" in the text of an article whose title is "Jean de Somewhere, marquis de Somewhere". Also, I believe usage such as "the earl of Warwick" is normally confined to history books, in which constant capitalisation of the numerous titles mentioned might be seen to break the flow (and which describe times when the Earl of Warwick was actually the earl of a place called Warwick rather than just someone with the title "Earl of Warwick"). Proteus (Talk) 16:41, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Proteus, could you provide some citations where the capital for the rank is used when reporting the full name of a French nobleman? john k 17:15, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * You only need to search on Google to see what people do. Searching for "Motier Marquis de la Fayette" shows sites in English mainly using "Marquis de la Fayette" and sites in French (or based in France) using "marquis de la Fayette". The French embassy in the US actually uses "Marquis". Proteus (Talk) 12:07, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi guys, when I was working with French nobles, which I mostly borrowed from the French wikipedia, I tended to translate everything literally, even personal names (so Jean, duc du Berry, became John, Duke of Berry, etc). I wasn't sure exactly what to do with them, or even if they should be "Philip I of Burgundy" or, as Muriel writes them, "Philip I, Duke of Burgundy." In my own readings I see names and titles in English and French, or in Old French, or partly in Latin...I have no idea how names and titles work as time goes on and it gets closer to the Revolution, for the most part I am just interested in the nobles from around Charlemagne to around the 13th century, and I'm not sure there is a standard at all for those names (I can only think of one, "Stephen, Count of Blois" who I don't think is ever referred to in any other way). Sorry, this probably doesn't help :) Adam Bishop 16:31, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, one never sees "Etienne, Comte de Blois", does one? Most of the people you've been using would, I think, go with Muriel's suggested format, although I'm not sure about translation of personal names, because people who are Dukes of Burgundy or Counts of Blois were territorial rulers, and not just nobles - I do think we need some kind of rule for how to do articles on non-sovereign rulers - princes of the Holy Roman Empire, and so forth. I don't think "Henry I of Brunswick", or whatever, is a very good way to do it for such people. I'd prefer "Henry I, Duke of Brunswick." john k 17:15, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To see what has to be renamed, moved, etc, according to the discussed above, i shall make an inventory of titles and styles in the next few days. Stay in touch. Muriel G 10:51, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Adenda: I think we should adopt the format (whatever the language) NAME II, TITLE of PLACE. Again, Burgundy provides us a good example, since there were at the same time, Dukes and Counts of Burgundy, which means that Philip I of Burgundy, eg, is less informative. Muriel G 10:53, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

French Ordinals
To whom it may interest:- User:Tkinias is not pleased with me at the moment, because I started transferring some of his articles, eg. Jules-Charles-Victurnien, 7e duc de Noailles, to what I thought was the correct title, ie. "7th duc" rather than "7e". But in all the verbiage above, I don't think we ever discussed ordinals. In fact, I didn't realise the French even used them. So, anyone got any opinions? Deb 11:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Life peers
I believe I brought this up a while ago on WikiProject Peerage, but not many people seem to watch there, so I thought I'd bring it up here: at the moment all life peers have their articles at the names they had before they were ennobled, but I think the system should be the same as it is for hereditary peers. While there are obviously exceptions such as Jeffrey Archer and Paddy Ashdown, most life peers are now plucked from obscurity or were unknown backbench MPs, and are almost always known by their peerage and not their name. How many people would realise that Thomas Henry Bingham was Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the Senior Law Lord, or that Ted Short was Lord Glenamara? The standard format for hereditary peers (Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington) even allows both pre-ennnoblement name and peerage to appear in the title, which is surely the best of both worlds and allows the greatest amount of instant recognition. I believe that unless a peer is overwhelmingly better known by their pre-ennoblement name alone (normally through being a famous politician), then both the name and the peerage should appear in the article title. Charlie Falconer, Baron Falconer of Thoroton would make it much more obvious to most people at first glance, or in a Google search, that the article was about the Lord Chancellor and not some random bloke who happened to have the same surname as him. Proteus (Talk) 11:34, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I agree. john k 16:10, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I didn't think the existing rules were that prescriptive. Didn't we have a vote on that just the other day? Deb 12:11, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * If there was a vote, I didn't see it. Naming conventions (names and titles) says "Life peers (ie, people who have peerages awarded exclusively for their lifetime but who neither inherit it nor pass it on to anyone else) are generally mentioned by their personal name not title, because among other reasons a life peerage is often awarded at the end of a career, while the individual holding them may be far more widely known though their personal name, so use George Robertson, not Lord Robertson." It's said that for as long as I can remember. Proteus (Talk) 12:24, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * What you say is confirmation of what I thought. The word "generally" surely implies "not always".  The vote I was thinking of related to hereditary titles, but the same applies there.  It all depends on the individual case. Deb 21:08, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * That rule is definitely being interpreted as saying "no peerages in article titles for life peers", even if that's not what it literally says, so I think either it should be rewritten or it should be removed altogether and all peers should be treated with the same criteria, whether life or hereditary (there's already a rule saying hereditary peers known exclusively by their pre-ennoblement name should not have the peerage in the title). Proteus (Talk) 12:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that the same criteria should apply to all peers. For many individuals, the awarding of a life peerage marks the beginning of a "new career" in the House of Lords or as a senior judge. The current rule states that titles should not be included in all cases, though the justification only applies in some instances. -- Emsworth 21:13, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Would anyone have any objections, then, if I removed the paragraph about life peers and changed "Members of the hereditary nobility (ie, people who inherit their title), such as a marquess, viscount, count, duke. earl, etc., as with royals have two names" in paragraph 1 of that section to "Members of the nobility, such as a marquess, viscount, count, duke. earl, etc. (in the UK both hereditary and life peers), as with royals have two names"? Proteus (Talk) 18:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, it's been a week, and no one's objected, so I'll take it that no one has any problems with that. Proteus (Talk) 09:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just didn't understand what you meant by "two names". Deb 11:49, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * "two names" is just what's written there at the moment. I assume it means that a hypothetical Lord Smith is both "John Smith" and "6th Baron Smith", and that both should be included. I'm simply proposing changing that section so what it says at the moment (which probably isn't the best way of phrasing it, I admit, but I didn't write it) applies to both hereditary and life peers, and deleting the exception for life peers. The same exception that allows David Lloyd George and Bertrand Russell would allow Betty Boothroyd, Andrew Lloyd Webber and Margaret Thatcher, while making the far more useful (for most life peers) Valerie Amos, Baroness Amos the standard. Proteus (Talk) 14:32, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Catherine Oxenberg's mother
I believe that the article on Catherine Oxenberg's mother should, according to our naming conventions, be at Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia, the name she uses in English-speaking countries, and which is part of her organization, the "Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia Foundation". However, others seem to think otherwise. We now have redirects (as the results of moves, etc.) at Kneginja Jelisaveta Karadjordjevic, Jelisaveta Karadjorjdevic, Princess Jelisaveta of Serbia, Countess Elizabeth of Serbia, Countess Jelisaveta of Serbia, Countess Jelisaveta of Serbia and Yugoslavia, Princess Elisabeth of Yugoslavia, and Princess Jelisaveta of Serbia and Yugoslavia. There are (at present) no double redirects, but they are created whenever someone decides on another name. Some guidance as to the proper place for the article would be welcome! -- Nunh-huh 18:49, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with you - it should be at "Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia" - can't see any reason why not. Deb 21:08, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don`t agree. here is why-her family karadjordjevic is calling themselfs royal family of serbia and yugoslavia.Her family reigned both, Serbia and Yugoslavia. that is the first thing. so we have of Serbia and Yugoslavia; then her name is Jelisaveta and you can say it is just translated in english as elizabeth but you cannot translate it like petar-peter. now we have Jelisaveta of Serbia and Yugoslavia; her title is-princess(self proclaimed) and real-kneginja which is similar to countess, or duchess I don`t know. But we can write princess anyway. So finally it is Princess Jelisaveta of Serbia and Yugoslavia.

Avala 10:47, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I would like to see Elizabeth, Princess of Yugoslavia since Princess, at least last time i checked, is not a proper name. Muriel G 10:55, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

of Serbia and Yugoslavia!!! Avala 12:38, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, Elizabeth, Princess of Serbia and Yugoslavia then :) Muriel G 13:36, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Muriel's suggestion implies that she's "The Princess of Serbia and Yugoslavia". I don't think this is the case. She is "Princess Elizabeth of ...." What about proper names? --Jiang 14:14, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I dont see where is the problem. A monarchy usually has several Princesses and Princes. Muriel G 14:21, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see your point. Prince William of Wales does not belong at William, Prince of Wales. --Jiang 16:02, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * And why not ? :) Muriel G 13:46, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok!! I just saw the problem after i saved. You're right. Muriel G 13:57, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes but she is not direct princess. She could never become queen unless half of the family dies. You can see family tree on royal family website. Current crown prince is related to her over his father who had a brother with daughter --->Jelisaveta.

Finally she is not Elizabeth,elisabeth, or elizabeta she is Jelisaveta. I repeated numerous times that you cannot really translate it like petar-peter. It would be like if I translate your name Muriel as Milan in Serbian because it is similar.

Avala 15:53, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If she is more commonly called "Elizabeth" than "Jelisaveta" in English (which a quick Google search would seem to indicate is the case) then that's the name that should be used in her article title. We regularly translate the names of royalty if the anglicisation is more common than the original. Proteus (Talk) 16:04, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ok but i get much more on jelisaveta karadjordjevic than elizabeth karadjordjevic Avala 16:54, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A couple of points:
 * 1) [First name, Princess of Such and Such] implies a unique title. We should use [Princess Firstname of Such and such].  This is the official policy.
 * 2) Members of the House of Karageorgevic are always referred to as Princes/Princesses in English. I'm also uncertain why you say kneginja is similar to Countess.  I assume it has the same root as the Russian "Knyaz", which is always translated as "Prince."
 * 3) Elizabeth and Jelisaveta are clearly the same name. The name is usually translated into English.  We should use "Elizabeth."
 * 4) It is utterly irrelevant that half of the royal family would have to die for Elizabeth to inherit. Prince Michael of Kent could not possibly inherit the British throne, as he married a Catholic. His sister, Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Lady Ogilvy, could only inherit if about thirty people died without having any children.  That doesn't make either one of them any less a prince or princess.  (BTW, Princess Elizabeth is much more distantly related to Crown Prince Alexander than you say - but this is irrelevant).
 * 5) As to "of Serbia and Yugoslavia," I'm not really sure. Certainly, for as long as Yugoslavia existed, the family emphasized the "Prince/ss of Yugoslavia" over the "Prince/ss of Serbia".  I'm not sure what they do now. john k 17:27, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

SEE THIS:
 * - it says royal family of serbia and yugoslavia
 * - family tree where you can see relation to Jelisaveta

Aleksandar ==========                      PETAR          ---   ARSEN ALEKSANDAR I   -    PAVLE PETAR II            JELISAVETA ALEKSANDAR II

this tree has a fault because jelisaveta is distant sister of alexander II not aunt. i think that there is one more alexander than needed - (unsigned comment by Avala).

The page has now been moved to Jelisaveta, Princess of Serbia and Yugoslavia], breaking the redirects. Avala, please stop moving the page based on your personal preferences and try to follow our naming conventions. Also, what matters is what she calls herself, or rather what name she is known by in English, and that is Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia. She does not seem to share your objection to translation, which is the standard here. What her relatives call themselves (e.g. adding "of Serbia" because of their aspirations) is a tangential issue. - Nunh-huh 21:03, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ga, Jelisaveta, Princess of Serbia and Yugoslavia is awful. Can we just get it back to Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia? Also, Avala is clearly ignorant of English terms for cousin relationships. The Crown Prince and Elizabeth are second cousins, once removed. And the Family tree he presents is not incorrect - there is not an extra generation. john k 03:04, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I would be very happy to move it there (again) and fix the redirects (again), I'm just trying to get consensus first, because everytime I've fixed it Avala's moved it to yet another name, and we don't need yet another! - Nunh-huh 03:21, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC) (BTW, I rather wish we could have a "nomenclature committee" who would just decide these things and everyone simply abide by them. I guess that would be insufficiently chaotic for a wiki...) - Nunh-huh 03:23, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Since we seem to be at consensus - 1, I'll do the fixing now. further thoughts still welcome. - Nunh-huh 06:31, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)