Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Existing Royal Consorts may be referred to by their consort name, eg. Sofia of Spain. But when her husband dies, she will revert to her pre-marital title, ie, [Sofia of Greece] with the new Queen of Spain being referred to by the consort designation. The same rule applies to male royal consorts.

I think the current policy on existing royal consorts creates confusing titles. "Sofia of Spain" suggests she is/was a reigning monarch. It would be less confusing if titles were added e.g. "Queen Sofia" or "Queen Sofia of Spain". --Jiang 18:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

changed the wording to "Existing Royal Consorts are referred to by their consort name, eg. Queen Sofia of Spain. But when her husband dies, she will revert to her pre-marital title, ie, [Sofia of Greece] with the new Queen of Spain being referred to by the consort designation." without objection. I would further like to change the wording to exclude the notion that consorts revert to their pre-marital titles upon their husband/wife's death. They are given a new title e.g. "Queen Mother" and should use that. Reverting to pre-marital titles should only be done upon death.

Suffixes for non-British/Commonwealth subjects/citizens receiving British awards should not be used. The sentences 'This Bob Geldof is not "Sir Bob Geldof" in the title and is "Bob Geldof KBE (hon.)" in the text. Likewise, Colin Powell is not "Sir Colin Powell" but "Colin Powell GCB (hon.)". See the talk page re explanation of change.' should be changed. The KBE reference can stand for Geldof as an Irishman, but few Americans know or care about what GCB is supposed to stand for and only British publications will ever add such suffixes to Powell's name (it currently does not exist in the wikipedia article). A mention somewhere in the article about receiving the award is appropriate, but adding it as part of a person's name is anglo-centric. --Jiang 19:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

replaced reference to Colin Powell with "Post-nominals should not be used for non-Commonwealth or former British Empire citizens as their use outside a Commonwealth context are extremely rare." without objection. No one uses these post nominals in the US. It's only used by British/Commonwealth people in their own contexts. --Jiang 08:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Courtesy titles (also referred to as an honorific prefix)² such as Lord or Lady differ from full titles because unlike full titles they are included as part of the personal name, often from birth. As such, they should be included in the article title if a person if universally recognised with it and their name is unrecognisable without it. For example, the nineteenth century British prime minister Lord John Russell was always known by that form of name, never simply John Russell. Using the latter form would produce a name that would be unrecognisable to anyone searching for a page on Russell.

I'm not a fan of citing as examples cases that are more convoluted than they need to be. The page on Russell is John Russell, 1st Earl Russell, as he was known after 1861, including during his second premiership. Can someone come up with a better example? Lord Randolph Churchill sprank to mind but regardless of his being known to history by that title there is also the need to disambiguate from his grandson Randolph Churchill. Timrollpickering 15:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lord Frederick Cavendish? Proteus (Talk) 19:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Have updated it. Timrollpickering 00:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Really just a slight tidy up to add two further exceptions clauses which cover current practice. Can I suggest we change the first paragraph as follows with addition in bold:

1. Members of the hereditary Peerage' (people who inherit their title), such as a marquess, viscount, count, duke. earl, etc., as with royals have two names. For example Henry John Temple was also the 3rd Viscount Palmerston, hence typically referred to as "Lord Palmerston". Rule here is, "So-and-so, ordinal (if appropriate) title of place", and place redirects as you see fit. The sequence number is included since personal names are often duplicated (see Earl of Aberdeen.) Examples: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, or Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, with redirect Lord Palmerston, which allows both of his names to be included. EXCEPTIONS: When individuals received hereditary peerages after retiring from the post of Prime Minister (unless they are better known for their later career under an additional/alternative title), or for any other reason are known exclusively by their personal names, do not include the peerage dignity. Examples: Anthony Eden (not "Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon"), Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell") (but Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth not Henry Addington). When individuals held more than one peerage and are best known by a title other than their highest one, use the interim one. Examples: Frederick John Robinson, 1st Viscount Goderich (not "Frederick John Robinson, 1st Earl of Ripon"), William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne (not "William Petty, 1st Marquess of Lansdowne"). When individuals inherited or were created peers but are best known to history by a courtesy title use that. Examples Frederick North, Lord North (not Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guilford), Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh (not Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry).

Both are in practice for good reason (and after long debate ages ago) because of how Addington/Sidmouth, North and Castlereagh are known to history but don't seem to be covered here. Timrollpickering 00:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Descriptions of policy here should follow practice, and this is how (rightly, I think) we've decided to do it. john k 03:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reading through this page, I noticed that it's not really up to date with our current practice, so I've changed several aspects of it:

• I've removed the "all titles" section at the beginning, as it gave a rule that only applies to titles in American English, and the vast majority of articles on people with titles don't use that. International English practice is to write "Lord Shrewsbury met the Duke", not "Lord Shrewsbury met the duke", and "the Secretary of State met the Prime Minister", not "the secretary of state met the prime minister", and the first way of each of those examples is the format used in the vast majority of articles, so it makes little sense to have this page contradict that usage.
• I've implemented the changes to the peerage section suggested above, as they make sense and no one seems to have any objections to them.
• I've added a bit about multiple peerages and single peerages with multiple parts, which merely explains current practice.
• I've deleted the sentence grouping baronets together with knights and added a section on baronets (again, merely reflecting current practice).
• I've edited the section on members of royal familes to reflect articles such as Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and made a couple of small tweaks.
• I've altered the section on formatting the opening of articles on members of royal families, as we changed this style a while ago because it didn't look very nice.

I think that's it, and as I say most of the changes merely reflect current practice and are simply bringing this page up to date, but feel free to complain if you think I've been too bold. Proteus (Talk) 15:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me. Deb 16:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, the current article titling for peeresses is a complete mess. For some we have Firstname, Title, as Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire. For some we have just the maiden name, e.g. Elizabeth Georgiana Leveson-Gower. For some we have Firstname Marriedname, Title, as Charlotte Montagu-Douglas-Scott, Duchess of Buccleuch. I would imagine we have others at Firstname Maidenname, Title, although I've not seen any. I already suggested at the Charlotte Montagu-Douglas-Scott page that we not use surnames at all for peeresses. Proteus disagrees, thinking that we should use the married name. I thought I would see what others think. There also seems to be a great deal of mess over how to title articles on Queen-Consorts for countries other than Britain. Should Princess Louise of Sweden who marries the King of Denmark be at Louise of Sweden or Louise of Denmark? That could perhaps be resolved as well. john k 19:41, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree it's a mess, but what exactly do you mean by peeresses? Sorry to go over old ground, but it seems obvious that we need different rules for peeresses in their own right from the rules that apply to women who have married peers. Deb 20:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In this case I meant women who marry peers. Suo jure peeresses are even more difficult, I think. Should we have Patricia Mountbatten, 2nd Countess Mountbatten of Burma or Patricia Knatchbull, 2nd Countess Mountbatten of Burma? But even worse, what do we do about suo jure peeresses who hold higher titles by marriage than they do in their own right, which is quite common? john k 21:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

AAAAARGH!!!!! Deb 21:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ouch. Firstly Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire is probably best at that page - she is best known as this, not least because of a very high profile biography with that very name. I think specific exceptions will need to apply in a lot of cases.

I'm not sure. It would at least be consistent to always used married name. I would rather have them all at Firstname Marriedname, Title than some there and some at Firstname, Title. john k 02:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm - it's the "what does most commonly known as mean?" problem again. Certainly in Georgiana's case "Duchess of Devonshire" should be in there even though I think she later remarried (there's a bit of discussion on the talk page). Timrollpickering 10:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As for rules how about these as some starting points:

• The title should always be used unless they are very well known without it (e.g. an authoress who is best known by whatever is on the title page of their books).

Agreed. john k 02:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Leave out "Dowager" completely, even if the woman only became prominent in widowhood.

Agreed. john k 02:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I think it's wrong to create unusual name variants that would not have been used at the same time so let's not use Firstnam Maidenname, title by marriage at all.

Well, we already do this with peers. For instance, Gathorne Hardy, 1st Earl of Cranbrook. By the time he was Earl of Cranbrook, his surname was Gathorne-Hardy. But since he was for a long time known as "Gathorne Hardy," the compromise is made. But I would agree with not doing this with peeresses, at least. john k 02:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dare we have a further rule for people who go and merge their first name and surname into a new surname for peerage titles? All the elements are still there? Timrollpickering 10:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• With suo jure peeresses, when the title has been given to a woman so as to allow both her husband to remain an MP and the family to have a peerage it's likely that the woman is not known by her maiden name so don't use it. So Mrs. Pitt the Elder would not start with "Hester Grenville". (Of course this case has the further problem that later on her husband received a higher title but I can't think of one whose husband died a commoner off the top of my head.)

Disraeli's wife died before he became Earl of Beaconsfield. So she'd be Mary Anne Disraeli, Viscountess Beaconsfield, I guess? john k 02:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As a peeress in her own right the number needs to be there so Mary Anne Disraeli, 1st Viscountess Beaconsfield, as she is at now. Certainly not Mary Anne Evans, 1st Viscountess Beaconsfield (maiden name + title) or Mary Anne Lewis, 1st Viscountess Beaconsfield (1st marriage name + title). There is of course the further problem of women who remarry - obviously a married title is formally lost on remarriage but this doesn't always follow in common use. Sarah, Duchess of York is likely to be always known as that or "Fergie" even if she does remarry. Timrollpickering 10:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also there's cases where a man is due to be granted a title but dies before it can be conferred and so it's conferred on his heir with remainder to be inherited as though he held it and his widow is given the style of a Dowager of the title by which she becomes well known but she was never actually married to someone who held the substantive title...Timrollpickering 10:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not 100% sure about how to tackle the suo jure' vs married higher titles (and Mrs. Pitt is relatively easy since both were Chatham) but my instinct is to give the former precedence over the latter, with a wide scope for individual variations.

Timrollpickering 01:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that married higher titles should get precedence, since they were almost certainly better known by that title than by their own. john k 02:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was okay with this until we got to Mrs Disraeli, but personally I would prefer to see her as just plain "Mary Anne Disraeli". Is the "1st Viscountess" thing correct? Supposing there was a "2nd Viscount whatever" and he died unmarried, but then the "3rd Viscount whatever" got married - would his wife still be 3rd Viscountess, because she takes her title from him? Deb 17:37, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, only suo jure peers and peeresses use numerals (so they aren't used by wives of peers or, in the past, husbands of peeresses who were styled as peers jure uxoris). If Lady Beaconsfield had survived to see her husband ennobled, she would have been "1st Viscountess Beaconsfield" but only "Countess of Beaconsfield". And they don't really make much sense when you've had suo jure peeresses - the son and heir of a 1st Countess is a 2nd Earl, even though there's never been an Earl before him - but they're generally used anyway. The only other way is writing "xth in line" in brackets afterwards, but Margaret of Mar, Countess of Mar (31st in line) is hardly an ideal article title. Proteus (Talk) 18:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I confess I was ignorant of this discussion when I moved Mrs Disraeli to Mary Anne Disraeli, 1st Viscountess Beaconsfield. However, she had been at Mary Anne Evans, and that didn't strike me as a good location. Mackensen (talk) 17:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IMO, persons who became peeresses by marriage, need neither maidenname nor marriedname in the heading. Keep it simple, please. What's the problem if a geading is Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, without anything else. 217.140.193.123 1 July 2005 10:36 (UTC)

There was a long discussion elsewhere some time ago on the use of styles within articles. An agreement was reached but it seems not to have been implemented. I'm proposing it again.

The proposal was simple. Articles on those possessing styles should explain the holder's style, not use it. The reasons were straightforward and logical.

1. Most encyclopaedias don't use them
2. People who don't understand styles (and that is most people on wikipedia) may interpret them as being POV. So writing His Holiness John Paul II is interpretated as stating that JPII is holy, that the Right Honourable Tony Blair means we are saying Blair is right and honourable, etc. Explaining rather than using a holder's style (in the pope's article, for example, by saying "Pope John Paul II is styled His Holiness", avoids any POV impressions and so avoids the sort of edit wars that have started to erupt on some 'styled' pages.
3. In the interest of balance all styles should be used, not just some. So if we have Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II we should have His Excellency President Bush, His Grace the Duke of Norfolk, the Right Reverend Dr. Herbert Fleisher, the Right Honourable the Lord Major of Dublin, His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Dublin etc. That would frankly be absurd and unworkable. But not to do it would be taking a POV stance on whose styles we choose to use and whose we choose not to use.
4. Do anti-popes get to be described using styles? Do exiled monarchs who have not abdicated be described using styles? Do we use historic but rarely used styles? Commonly used styles? Widely known if unused styles? Will writing His Majesty King Constantine II be seen as POV by most Greeks, given that a clear majority is now republican? Can exiled royalty be styled? Do we give Louise, the daughter of the Earl and Countess of Wessex, her style, given that she is technically a HRH but her parents have opted to call her Lady Louise?
5. What if there is no english equivalent to a local style used for a president/monarch or notable?

There are numerous other arguments. It is a complete hornets' nest of problems. Styles have to feature. The task is to use them in the least POV, least controversial, least likely to be misunderstood manner. Incorporating a neutral sentence in the text achieves that. Starting articles by using controversial styles risks too many controversies, too many edit wars, too many mis-understandings. It is too provocative and in the manner in which they have been used, frankly OTT, with articles cluttered with HRHs, HSH, HMs, etc. FearÉIREANN 17:16, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm okay with all this. Care to give your views on "Peeresses" (above)? Deb 17:37, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Will do, Debs.

As you know, I disagree completely, but I'm not going to post a long counter-argument. I will just say two things: firstly, people thinking something is POV doesn't make it POV, and I don't think we should be pandering to stupidity and misconception; and secondly, putting "So-and-so is styled Such-and-such" in every single article on Privy Counsellors, bishops, peers, royals, etc. is cumbersome and much less professional-looking than just starting with the style. Proteus (Talk) 18:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I understand, but Proteus, unfortunately some people do make stupid presumptions. And as a free edit encyclopaedida, simply saying 'don't be stupid. That's ridiculous' won't work if a handful of people wage edit wars on pages they (stupidly) think is POV. I'm the one who started the Style (manner of address) definition in and added styles into pages. So I'm all for styles. I simply want them done in a way that narrows the danger of 'POV' edit wars. To paraphrase about Caesar's wife, we mustn't just be NPOV but be seen to be NPOV and make allowances for those (and there are a heck of a lot) who don't understand styles and read into them a POV meaning - however much I want to grab them and scream very loudly, 'listen you idiot. That does not mean what you think it means. And it isn't POV'. Instead I have to take a chill pill and find some way putting up with their ignorance. :-). - FearÉIREANN 19:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's why we need a clear policy page that explains that styles aren't POV, so when idiots start removing them we can just point them in the direction of that page instead of having pointless and completely ridiculous arguments. Proteus (Talk) 20:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with FearÉIREANN's intention. But it this is going to be added to the style guide, it needs to a little more clear, maybe along the lines of "styles of address, such as blah blah". Maurreen 05:30, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK. So is everyone OK if I work on a wording for this? I'll paste it here first so everyone can see it and discuss it before putting it live on the main page. FearÉIREANN 19:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Styles do not have to be listed for every person who has one. For common styles, like "right honorable", it's enough that the appropriate article, like Member of Parliament describes it.

Another thing is, calling people who disagree with you "idiots" and calling their opinions "stupid presumptions" takes much from the weight of your own words and is definitely not the way towards a consensus. Zocky 16:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was talking about some of the arguments put forward to suggest that styles are POV, not in any way suggesting that any of the arguments here are idiotic. Far from it. I agree with Proteus that styles should feature. I am just pointing out that some people make presumptions that have nothing to do with facts and in fact will not listen to them. On one of the papal pages, for example, one person insisted categorised the use of 'His Holiness' as POV. Legions of wikipedians pointed out that it isn't but is simply a style of address and did not mean wikipedia was taking a stance. The person would not listen but adopted the stance that they were going to revert, revert, revert everywhere they saw 'Holiness' being used. 99.99999% were on one side of the argument. So were the facts, history, research, etc. But one person didn't care what anyone said - he thought it was POV so that was that. Personally I regard that atitude as, yes, idiotic. Unfortunately styles are one area where there is a danger of this thing happening. All I suggested was a way that can use the styles but not lay themselves open to charges of POV. And none of the arguments here by anyone have in any way been seen by me as idiotic or whatever. I have the height of respect for everyone here. They are all serious credible people who know what they are doing. FearÉIREANN 19:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is in the wrong place, which is why I've only just seen it. Naming conventions are to do with how articles are named. How subjects are treated in articles is dealt with in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). To be NPOV we must report what happens in the real world - and what happens in the real world is that some people are styled using honorifics. And so articles should, where appropriate, use them, jguk 20:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You keep mixing up two totally different things, Jguk. Styles and honorifics are different things. Honorifics are used frequently as part of a name, styles are a decorative feature used to show honour and respect for an office holder. They are used in completely different ways. How many people talk about the 'Honourable Speaker' when talking about the Speaker of Congress? They don't. Please understand that you are mixing up two different things, Jguk. FearÉIREANN 19:57, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Any intelligent discussion of this issue depends on clear definitions of title, honorific, and style. I hope that before making any new policies the basic terms can be agreed upon. Rather than deciding this in a vacuum, I suggest referring to practice elsewhere and looking at some style guides. I see, for example, that style guide of the British magazine The Economist entirely omits any mention of using honorifics in their entry on 'titles.' [1] I expect that they do not use them. -Willmcw 01:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Therein lies the rub. The terms "style", "title" and "honorific" apply to how a word/phrasing is used in a particular context. The same word/phrasing can be used in a variety of contexts. Of course "honorific" is really an adjective, not a noun, and when used as a noun is effectively short for "honorific style"!

Put another way, things which are styles and titles can often be used as honorifics, and where they are so used, they are honorifics. Similarly honorifics can often be used as styles and titles.

We are therefore not going to be able to say that any particular phrase is a "style" or "title" but not an "honorific".

Anyway, I think we are pretty much agreed, are we not, that honorific styles should not be used in title names, which is what this policy on this page is about, except in a very few instances, for example, when they are there to disambiguate, jguk 10:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the current policy for baronets. I think the title should only be used when necessary to disambiguate. By the current rule, Robert Peel should be at Sir Robert Peel, 2nd Baronet. john k 17:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm bringing this discussion over from talk:Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom#Queen_Elizabeth_not_exclusively_Queen_of_the_UK

It is inaccurate to describe Elizabeth II as only the Queen of the U.K., as she is also, euqally, Queen of all her other Commonwealth Realms, ie. Queen Elizabeth II of Australia, Queen Elizabeth II of Jamaica, Queen Elizabeth II of Canada, etc.

I undestand that Section 4 of Monarchical Titles states: "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ones." But, in the case of Queen Elizabeth II, she is the Sovereign of one crown (note, the Crown, not the British Crown) over all 16 Realms, and is thus commonly associated with all of them. By the 1931 Statute of Westminster, no one Realm is superior to the other, and so to title her only as Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom implies supremacy of the U.K. over the other Realms.

I think it is within Wikipedia rules, and much more accurate, to title the page on Queen Elizabeth II as 'Queen Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms' gbambino

1) It's not "inaccurate" to call her Queen of the United Kingdom, because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. 2) She's most commonly associated with the United Kingdom. To suggest otherwise is just silly. 3) There are multiple crowns, one for each realm, not one big crown. 4) She is never ever ever described by the title you suggest. (Google: "Your search - "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms" - did not match any documents." "Your search - "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms" - did not match any documents.") Proteus (Talk) 21:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1) It is not inaccurate to call her Queen of the United Kingdom, she is certainly Queen of the U.K. But, it is inaccurate to title a page giving information on the Queen, who is queen of numerous Realms (and it says as much right on the page), only as Queen of the United Kingdom. It is also far from "silly" to suggest such a thing.

Claiming her position as Queen of the U.K. is superior to her position as Queen of any other Realm is factually inaccurate.

2) How is she "most commonly" associated with the United Kingdom? Do you mean because the media calls her the British Queen wherever she is, and no matter what she is doing? If so, then keep in mind they are as much in error in saying such things as Wikipedia is.

3) There are not multiple crowns. There is one Crown acting within the jurisdiction of each Realm. Please read the 1931 Statute of Westminster and see that the document only makes reference to the Crown.

Hence, the Crown operates in Canada as the Crown in Right of Canada, or, for simplicity’s sake, the Canadian Crown. In fact, any legal documentation in any Realm will make reference to the Crown, the Crown in Right of… , or Her Majesty The Queen in Right of…

4) Queen Elizabeth of the Commonwealth Realms is not an official title. I never suggested it was. But, if you want to stick to her official titles then you will have to title the page as Queen Elizabeth of… and list every country for which she is queen. That, of course, is somewhat ridiculous. So, Queen Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms is accurate and avoids having to list sixteen countries after her name. gbambino

We don't label earlier monarchs in such a way - it's Charles I of England not Charles I of England, Scotland & Ireland.

And if there's only one crown, why did each Dominion have to pass its own Act of Abdication in 1936? How could Edward VIII's reign end a day earlier than elsewhere in South Africa and a day later in the Irish Free State (or the other way round) if he and Parliament were only renouncing a single crown? Timrollpickering 22:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As noted on the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom talk page, I see no problem why we shouldn't have that article (and those for the monarchs since George V) named simply "Elizabeth II" ("George V", "Edward VIII", "George VI"). I also note that if you type these into "search" they redirect to Elizabeth of the United Kingdom, etc.. A title such as "Elizabeth II" does not prefer one realm over another. As this change would only currently affect the titles of 4 articles, I do not see how any changeover could be interpreted as an unwelcome precedent, jguk 21:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

With Tim, I will again point out that the British Commonwealth since 1931 is not unique - throughout European history monarchs have held multiple titles. Occasionally, we include multiple titles in the article title – Louis II of Hungary and Bohemia being the only example I can think of at the moment, and I think that is probably the wrong location – but almost always we simply use one title. This gets back to Gbambino's response to Proteus's fourth point - the way we deal with monarchs who have multiple titles is normally to just list the first title in the article title. Jguk - it absolutely sets a bad precedent, because there are dozens of monarchs who have been monarchs of multiple countries. This will open the question of titles for all those people. And George V certainly is not unambiguous - There was King George V of Hanover, at the very least, and probably some other German monarchs, although I can't think of any at the moment. john k 23:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It would also set a bad precedent as there are numerous monarchs who are utterly unambiguous - Louis XIV, for instance. john k 23:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I still think there's uniqueness. To start with it's the only currently subsisting example of a combined monarchical role. Also, we are dealing with the only monarch of English-speaking nations, and this is the English Wikipedia (OK, Malaysia has English as one of 4? official languages, but you know what I'm getting at). It is also indisputably the case that anyone referring to "Elizabeth II" is referring to HM The Queen. And finally, as to your claim that George V is unambiguous - (1) I think that, unless the context determines otherwise, all native English speakers will think you are referring to the late British (etc. etc.) King; (2) "George V" is currently a straight redirect to "George V of the United Kingdom", which itself does not have any disambiguation for other George V's. Therefore I do not see disambiguation as being a problem (if you are concerned about this, we'll do something like Julius Caesar (the great late 19th century cricketer;) ). I think all that Gbambino is asking for is recognition that QEII is not just Queen of the UK. Since it is a fact that she is also the Queen of a number of other independent nations, I have no problem in adopting a style that does not specifically link her to the UK, jguk 23:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've just changed George V into a redirect, and changed all the links. At any rate, the article as it is fully acknowledges that she is not queen only of the UK, just as the article on Henry IV acknowledges that he was also King of Navarre. I do not see how the situations are any different. john k 23:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would have preferred it if you had waited till we had concluded this discussion (I wouldn't have pointed it out else - and I'm not sure what you have done is consistent with WP disambiguation policy). Anyways, I think we have both stated our cases and should await other views - it's just a question of whether we just wait here or list it on WP:RfC. Certainly I'd welcome views from others, jguk 00:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you want to, you can just move my disambiguation page to George V (disambiguation), redirect George V to the page on the King of the UK, and add a disambiguation note to the top. john k 06:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, don't do that. What you've done is right. Deb 17:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am another, I am Canadian, and I agree wholly with gbambino. I would never, EVER, refer to my Queen as the "Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", EVER. I always refer to her as "Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada". I think that "The Queen of the Commonwealth Realms" seems a very fitting title for her, and even if it is not yet official, it seems to make much more sense than only mentioning her as Queen of one of her many realms. --Maxwell C. 00:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms" is an absurd title that no one uses, and as such should not be the title of an article. Furthermore, no Scottish person would ever, EVER have referred to James VI as "James I of England". But yet, that is where the article is. People in Castile did not call Charles V "the Emperor", but called him "King Carlos I of Castile". And so on and so forth. Articles can only be in one place. For monarchs, the policy is and has been that they go with their principal title. The sentimental dislike for the fact that she is primarily associated with the UK by a bunch of commonwealth realm monarchists shouldn't change this. john k 06:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As for the monarchs who are, or were, simultaneously sovereigns of multiple countries, I understand that this problem goes beyond Elizabeth II. However, I think this issue has shown that the problem is a fundamental one with the overall procedure to title pages on monarchs.

It was stated earlier "it is standard practice to use the first of several technically equal realms, only, in article titles" and "just list the first title in the article title". If this is the case, how can one realm be placed in advance of "equal" realms? That is a contradiction in terms. And, that point aside, what, or who, decides what the "first" title is? Is that the first obtained? Then the page on James VI and I is wrong. Is it the fist 'associated'? Well, that's a matter of opinion, as English may say James I is more important, whereas Scots will say James VI. (John k admitted as much when saying "no Scottish person would ever, EVER have referred to James VI as "James I of England.")

That leads into the point that using the argument "she is best known as..." or "the fact that she is primarily associated with the UK" doesn't fly either-- that's just a biased point of view. As Scots and English will differ over James VI and I, so will Canadians, Australians, Britons, etc. differ over Elizabeth II.

All that needs to be put aside, and what needs to be realised is that it is as accurate and unbiased to say James VI of Scotland was equally James I of England, as it is to say Elizabeth II of the U.K. is equally Elizabeth II of Canada. And the Wikipedia pages should reflect the fact that the realms are equal, not opinion about which realm is more important.

With that in mind, I wonder if it is possible to be methodical about monarchs, and simply title the entire page with their name and most superior title, for example, Queen Elizabeth II, and perhaps the dates of birth and death. Then, immediately below have a 1st list outlining the most superior titles, organized first by country in alphabetical order, and secondarily by the dates on which they were obtained.

Then, in another paragraph, a 2nd list of any subsidiary titles such as Duke of.., again, in order of supremacy first, then by country alphabetically, and then by dates obtained.

This could continue on for previous titles, etc., for as much information as can be collected by Wikipedia.

I've set up an example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II_%281926-_present%29_%28trial%29 It can be deleted by the moderators when finished with, as I only did it as a demonstration.

This may not be perfect, yet, but I think it’s a more unbiased and factually correct way to give information about monarchs. If 2 monarchs have the same name (ie. 2 King George Vs), it will be clear in the dates of birth and death, dates of ascension, and listed countries of which they were king, which George V a researcher is looking for. gbambino

Sigh. The current nomenclature was devised over a long period, and has stood up without causing serious problems for a long time. A system with George V (1865-1936) and George V (1819-1878) would, I suppose, make sense, but it would be unnecessarily confusing to those who don't know much about them. Furthermore, you are simply wrong to say that it is POV to choose a single country. The fairly simple criterion of which country the monarch lived in should do. James VI and I is an unusual case, as he was King of Scotland alone for years before becoming King of England. But Charles I visited Scotland once during his reign, for instance. Calling him Charles I of England is to acknowledge what was acknowledge about him by others at the time, who would have universally referred to him as "the King of England" or just "England", and not "the King of England, Scotland, and Ireland". Now, obviously, the question of which realm is superior can be difficult to establish. When one title is higher than another, that makes it easier - that the Holy Roman Emperor was also, and separately, King of Hungary, King of Bohemia, Archduke of Austria, and so on and so forth should of course be noted, but the imperial title is higher, and so gets to be in the title. For people who were King (or Duke, or whatever) of several places, it's more complicated, but usually not terribly so. Charles III of Spain had earlier been Charles VII of Naples (and Charles V of Sicily), but his abandonment of those kingdoms makes Charles III of Spain the proper title. And so forth. The current system is fine, and there's no reason to abandon it. john k 21:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see. So, the opinion, given elsewhere, of "I think we [can] give the Wikipedia people the benefit of the doubt and say they're just being a little lazy," is actually true.

I'm disappointed that Wikipedia chooses to remain with a standard that relies on point of view, rather than trying to be more factual. After all, you once stated that "the fact that she lives in Britain is completely immaterial." Therfore, you contradict your other comment explaining that the more dominant realm is chosen by "the fairly simple criterion of which country the monarch lived in." So, it becomes clear that you have no real method to choose which realm is associated more strongly with the monarch, it is purely and simply your own personal choice. gbambino

To note - as far as I can gather my statement that you quote was not an actual statement of my views, but a mistake, in which I said the exact opposite of what I meant - reading that post, my point is clearly that the fact that she lives in Britain is completely material. john k 23:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now.

However, I will still argue that the fact of constitutional law overrides where the monarch lives. Whether she lived in Tuvalu, Jamaica, or the U.K. doesn't matter. Not one bit. It would still remain undeniable, and absolute fact that the Queen would be queen equally of all her realms.

Aside from hinting that changing the 'standards' would be an inconvenience, you still have not given a convincing argument as to why the above facts, and not simply about Elixabeth iI, but all monarchs who reigned equally over more than one country, should not affect the format of Wikipedia pages on monarchs. In fact, what you have explained above about the country the monarch living in being in the title (George I of England), or the higher title being in the title (Holy Roman Emperor), or some monarchs being specail cases (James I of England), only serves to show just how convoluted the long developed Wikipedia standards are.

But, of course, the decision remains in your hands. gbambino

Actually, the decision is in the hands of the wikipedia community as a group. I certainly would not want to give the impression that those of us who have worked on these standards in the past are an exclusive oligarchy, and that we have any more rights over the content of the articles than anybody else. But I still think your concerns are essentially either misguided or impractical. Now, we could have articles at places like George I, King of Great Britain and Ireland, Elector of Hanover. But this would be extraordinarily awkward, and would make it hard for anybody to find the article. It also leaves unclear such questions as which crowns count and which don't. George I, for instance, did not call himself "King of Great Britain and Ireland." His official style was "King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland." But he was not actually King of France. So how does that fit in? And what about the French monarchs as kings of Navarre. Under Henry IV and the first ten years of Louis XIII, the tiny piece of Navarre which had remained to its French kings, rather than being annexed by Spain, remained constitutionally separate from France. In 1620, it was incorporated administratively within the Kingdom of France, but the French kings retained the style "King of France and Navarre." So do we call Henry IV Henry IV of France and Navarre but Louis XIV just Louis XIV of France, even though they bore the same title? What about monarchs who at different times ruled over different places. For instance, as I noted somewhere else, the third son of King Philip V of Spain became Duke of Parma as Charles (Carlo) I in 1731. He reigned there for four years. He then gave up Parma, and became King of Naples and Sicily. So he was Charles (Carlo) VII of Naples and Charles (Carlo) V of Sicily until his elder brother died in 1759. Then he gave up the two Italian thrones and became King Charles (Carlos) III of Spain. How would you suggest we title that article? My argument is not that moving the articles would be inconvenient. It's that it opens a whole can of worms and there's no easy answers. The current system has worked well. It means that you know where articles on European monarchs should be, and those titles are not particularly awkward. Sure, the system is in some respects arbitrary, and it doesn't deal as well as it might with some issues. But there are going to be significant problems with any system that is devised. The current system generally works along the lines of listing only one title. Which title that is is usually determined by either the highest title, or the most commonly used title. There are few cases where this cannot be very easily determined, and in Elizabeth's case, it is remarkably not difficult. john k 04:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

gbambino, can you point to any official documents or even any unofficial ones that refer to Elizabeth as "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms"? If not then you are coining a new title and it is agaisnt wikipedia policy to coin new words or titles, that would be the same thing as "orginal research". We report, we do not invent. AndyL 22:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is probably an acceptable solution, even if it is not perfect. This is because:

• Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, etc. is impractical and Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom can be seen as shorthand for it.
• We can create redirects such as Elizabeth II of Canada, Elizabeth II of Australia, etc.
• As for why the main page should be the "of the United Kingdom" one rather than of any other realm, it is simply because it is the most common usage. Even in Canada her official title is "Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada and her other Realms and Territories". The only other contender for popular usage would be "of England", which is sadly not only incomplete but also incorrect.
• Clearly "of the United Kingdom" is not perfect. However the alternative "of the Commonwealth Realms" simply has no precedent.
• "Elizabeth II, Head of the Commonwealth" would sound better and is possibly the only title that would be completely impartial, being accepted not only in all the Realms, but throughout the Commonwealth. However, it perhaps obscures the fact that her primary role is that of Queen, and that historically (if not constitutionally) she is Queen of Canada, Australia, etc. and Head of the Commonwealth because she is Queen of the United Kingdom and not the other way round. However, I would have no problem with this compromise.
• This is clearly not a problem that is restricted to Elizabeth II: e.g. James VI of Scotland and I of England, etc. People just have to accept that we cannot please everybody, and we have to have some sort of uniformity across our articles. Andrew Yong 23:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Andrew, you make some very good points, and I understand them all. However, I have the following comments:

• Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, etc. is impractical and Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom can be seen as shorthand for it.

This, I absolutely agree with. Listing all 16 of her Realms in the title of a Wikipedia page is ridiculous.

• We can create redirects such as Elizabeth II of Canada, Elizabeth II of Australia, etc.

This can be done, and has been. For instance, there is a page on Elizabeth II of Austrlalia, titled only as "Queen of Australia", at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Australia However, the page which used to be titled "Queen of Canada" was altered to be "Monarchy in Canada". And, the biggest problem with the current state of things is that any search on Elizabeth II will immediately take one to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.

• As for why the main page should be the "of the United Kingdom" one rather than of any other realm, it is simply because it is the most common usage. Even in Canada her official title is "Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada and her other Realms and Territories". The only other contender for popular usage would be "of England", which is sadly not only incomplete but also incorrect.

The most common usage does not play into this I believe. The majority of people deem Elizabeth II always as Queen of Britain purely because they are ignorant of the institution of the Crown as it currently exists. I feel strongly that continuing to call Elizabeth II purely the Queen of the U.K. only abets the ignorance, rather than shedding light on the accurate facts. Listing her other Realms beneath or after the U.K. may be better, but only very slightly as it still makes Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Canada, etc. seem subordinate and inferior compared to the U.K.

Also, as for her title in Canada, Canada is the only country, outside of Grenada and the U.K. itself, which includes the U.K. in her title. Personally, I think this is wrong, and Canada should title her as her other Realms do. However, the 1953 Royal Titles and Styles Act is only a piece of Canadian legislation, and in no way affects her constitutional role as the Queen of Canada, shared equally with the other Realms.

• Clearly "of the United Kingdom" is not perfect. However the alternative "of the Commonwealth Realms" simply has no precedent.

I agree now that Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms is not appropriate for Wikipedia as it is not an official title (though I do still think it's a good one!).

And the point that "of the United Kingdom" is not perfect shows that there must somehow be a way to improve the Wikipedia page, and those others that pertain to monarchs who were simultaneously reigned over more than one country.

• "Elizabeth II, Head of the Commonwealth" would sound better and is possibly the only title that would be completely impartial, being accepted not only in all the Realms, but throughout the Commonwealth. However, it perhaps obscures the fact that her primary role is that of Queen, and that historically (if not constitutionally) she is Queen of Canada, Australia, etc. and Head of the Commonwealth because she is Queen of the United Kingdom and not the other way round. However, I would have no problem with this compromise.

You're right that her role as Head of the Commonwealth of Nations is something completely different to her role as Queen of the Realms of the Commonwealth. In this case, the latter is the more important, and so I don't think Elizabeth II, Head of the Commonwealth is appropriate. Countries such as India and South Africa are members of the Commonwealth, and they recognize her as head of that organization, but she is not their head of state, as she is for Canada, Australia, et al.

Also, you're right that the accidents of history have led her to become Queen of Canada, Australia, etc. because of her being Queen of the U.K., but the institutions of the Monarchy and the Crown have evolved in the past 74 years and she is, in reality, no longer simply and uniquely British.

• This is clearly not a problem that is restricted to Elizabeth II: e.g. James VI of Scotland and I of England, etc. People just have to accept that we cannot please everybody, and we have to have some sort of uniformity across our articles.

No, this problem is not unique to Queen Elizabeth II. I have kept that in mind while trying to figure out what could be done; whatever applies to Elizabeth II must apply to all others who were monarchs of several countries/territories at once. gbambino

And now for something completely different...

Over at Talk:William Ward, 2nd Earl of Dudley, I have been arguing with Adam Carr over whether the article should actually be at William Humble Ward, 2nd Earl of Dudley. My arguments has been that whenever his full name is listed, the Humble is included, making that the most common form. Adam's argument is that since he is normally just called "Lord Dudley," the Humble is not usually included, meaning it should be excluded from the article title. This argument seems odd to me - the form we use for articles on peers is never the name by which they are most commonly known, because it is an artificial construct. But that artificial construct does show up a lot, and I think it makes more sense to use the most commonly used form of that construct, not to just exclude all middle names en masse.

At any rate, given that middle names have been being ruthlessly culled for the last several months without any specific warrant in policy, I thought we should debate this and try to come to some consensus on how to deal with it. I'd say that when the number of middle names is not unreasonable, and the person is known exclusively as a peer, they should be included in the title. I'm not sure beyond that, but I don't especially like the current operation. Any thoughts? (Also, would anyone like to comment about my earlier question about baronets?) john k 16:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree that middle names should be retained, especially as in the example you cite is one where the middle name is well known and used. After all, who would ever look under "William Hearst" for the famous 20th century publisher? Would we find someone unfamiliar with Welsh names retitling the british prime minister from WWI as "David George"? Does Pygmalion's author become George Shaw? John Kenney's position is the most logical.--StanZegel 19:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stan - Adam isn't saying that middle names should not be used for non-peers who are best known with their middle names. He is saying that because peers are almost never best known by any of their given names (but rather as "Lord Suchandsuch"), peers should never have the middle name, unless they were known before they became peers by their full name. At least, that's I think what he's arguing. This seems silly to me. john k 21:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with what you say Adam's arguing, actually. To take an extreme example, the present Earl of Shrewsbury is called Charles Henry John Benedict Crofton Chetwynd Chetwynd-Talbot. He's never been known by any of those names (as he was "the Viscount Ingestre" from birth until succeeding to the peerage), and yet putting him at Charles Henry John Benedict Crofton Chetwynd Chetwynd-Talbot, 22nd Earl of Shrewsbury is clearly ridiculous. I'd rather say "he's known to his friends as "Charles", his mother probably called him "Charles", so we'll call him that too", and put him at Charles Chetwynd-Talbot, 22nd Earl of Shrewsbury. I also feel that using the full name implies that a person was actually known by all their names, and thus that format should be reserved for people who actually are, like John Julius Cooper, 2nd Viscount Norwich, who is actually known as "John Julius". Proteus (Talk) 21:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, to an extent. Doing the full name for somebody with twelve names is absurd. Of course, sometimes "Charles" isn't the name that his mother and friends call him by, and sometimes we don't know that. So we should be careful on that front. But for someone like William Humble Ward, 2nd Earl of Dudley, this is not the case. As an article title, that is perfectly manageable. And it is how he is known. (I'll refer back to Ulysses, where he is referred to as "William Humble, Earl of Dudley". One to two middle names seems essentially manageable to me, especially since often times British public figures are known by initials - E.F.L. Wood, for instance (although he's at Edward Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax, I believe), and so forth. I think the presumption should be to show that the middle names are either a) absurd or b) rarely used. john k 21:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that we should adopt what is, in effect, "normal" behaviour here - peers get middle names in their article titles if they use them often, and not otherwise. Wouldn't that be easiest?

Of course, "often" is a judgement call, but that's what we have human editors for anyway ;-)

James F. (talk) 22:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that Adam's argument seems to ultimately be that unless the person was known before they became a peer, you should never use the middle name, because they're commonly known as "Lord Suchandsuch", and thus not by the middle name. This just seems too extreme to me. john k 23:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well it makes sense if you view the whole "real" name more as a convenience than as part of the "most common name" of the person. We can't have an article called 2nd Earl of Loamshire, so we make it Forename Surname, 2nd Earl of Loamshire, which in this case is William Ward, 2nd Earl of Dudley (or in my example Charles Chetwynd-Talbot, 22nd Earl of Shrewsbury). We're clearly not going to include all the names for people like Lord Shrewsbury, and it seems a little inconsistent to leave out all his middle names but include those of people with only one or two. I can't comment on which is more common in this case, as the Google results are ridiculously skewed on one side by Wikipedia mirrors and on the other side by peerage sites which always list full names. But from a purely aesthetic point of view, if a person is best (or only) known by a peerage, it seems odd to have more of the article title than necessary taken up by his "real" name. John Murray, 1st Earl of Ilay (someone I just made up) makes you think "ah, Lord Ilay" much more quickly than does John William George Murray, 1st Earl of Ilay. Proteus (Talk) 23:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suppose, but this seems problematic to me, especially since with aristocratic Britons it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between surnames and middle names, due to all the adding of new names, and so forth, as a result of inheritances. It should also be noted that the name one's mother calls one in the case of the 2nd Earl of Dudley is highly misleading - the ODNB notes that he was called "Eddie," due to his courtesy title of Viscount Ednam. Should this then be at Eddie Ward, 2nd Earl of Dudley? I'll add that the "Humble" as much as the "2nd" disambiguates him from his father. john k 23:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another case is Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay, where there has been controversy over my moving the page from Thomas Macaulay. He is often referred to as either "Lord Macaulay" or "Thomas Babington Macaulay" - both appear of the title pages of editions of his books. His name is never given in the form "Thomas Macaulay" and it would be absurd to use that as the first half of the article title just because "Lord Macaulay" is a bit more common. Timrollpickering 01:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

These issues have all been giving me headaches, so I thought I'd just propose some standards and see what people say. If no one responds at all after a week, I'm just going to incorporate them into the article and start moving articles to correspond.

A) Sub-King European monarchs - Because non-royal monarchs of places that later became kingdoms often double numbers with their successors (the Frederick Augustus of Saxony problem), monarchs below the level of kings should be at Name Number, Title of Place. That is to say Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria or Ferdinand III, Grand Duke of Tuscany rather than Maximilian I of Bavaria (here, again, we see the overlap problem) or Ferdinand III of Tuscany (here there is no overlap problem, but I think consistency is to be valued here. This would require changes to the current monarchies of Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, and Monaco.

B) Continental nobility - The headache of continental nobility was always determining whether or not they were sovereign, and thus get a Name of Place, rather than regular nobility which gets Name, Title of Place. With the first proposal in place, this becomes less of a problem. I propose that

Pt. 1 - French nobility

1. For French nobility, use the form Firstname (Surname, if any), Ordinal Frenchtitle de Frenchlacename for ordinary nobility. Ordinals should not be used if they would not normally be used - e.g. for royal dukes.
   • I'm open to suggestion whether we use the French or English ordinal forms. I'm also uncertain if we should capitalize the French titles or not. The French themselves do not, but that looks kind of funny.
2. For French nobility that is semi-sovereign, we use Firstname, Englishtitle of Englishplacename. Thus Louis, Duc de Bourgogne, but Philip III, Duke of Burgundy. These would largely be medieval rulers - nobody after the 16th century should fall into this category.

Pt. 2 - Other continental nobility

1. Always use English titles (Duke, not Duque or Herzog, &c)
2. Use ordinal when appropriate (e.g. for Spanish and Italian nobles, but not for folks from the Holy Roman Empire)

C) Monarchs with surnames - Monarchs with surnames that are generally used (especially Italian princelings like the Estes, Gonzagas, Farneses, Medicis, but also Polish monarchs), go at the form Firstname Surname, Title of Place. So Cosimo I de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, not Cosimo de' Medici (the current location) or Cosimo I of Tuscany (what current practice would suggest we should do). Similarly, John III Sobieski, King of Poland, not John III of Poland or John Sobieski or the current monstrosity that I, sadly, am responsible for, John III Sobieski of Poland. This would not apply to the Tudor and Stewart rulers of England and Scotland.

• I'm undecided about whether this should apply to the medieval German monarchs post-Hohenstaufen and pre-Habsburg. Louis IV of Bavaria, Holy Roman Emperor seems fine to me, but I'd like to hear what others think. [I've decided that I don't like this idea. john k 16:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

Comments? Thoughts? Suggestions? john k 22:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An additional proposal:

That we discard the rule saying that monarchs who are the only one of their name never use the ordinal. We should use the ordinal when it is used in the country of which that person is a monarch. This, of course, requires more judgment, but surely we are at the point where we can handle this. So we'd have Juan Carlos I of Spain or Karl I of Austria, but still have Victoria of the United Kingdom and Beatrix of the Netherlands. Thoughts? john k

I'm surprised this additional proposal isn't already the naming convention. I'm in favour of it, jguk 22:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm in favour, too. Very clear and logical. And I think Louis IV of Bavaria, Holy Roman Empire is very good; this style should really be employed to all HREs (though I guess some of them weren't kings, and then we get two titles in the article title, but I don't mind that). Only two questions:

1. Is there, really, a reason to treat kings differently? Why not have Maximilian I, King of Bavaria etc. as well?

2. Is there, really, a reason to treat France differently? What's wrong with "Louis, Duke of Bourgogne"? -- Jao 14:49, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

In order:

1. We already have conventions for kings and emperors, which have worked well for a long time. I certainly don't want to open up that can of worms. Do you really want to have to move every king? Henry II of England to Henry II, King of England; Leopold I of Belgium to Leopold I, King of the Belgians, and so on? I don't think that, a priori, this is a bad idea, but it's a lot of hassle. If there's a consensus that the whole naming policy for kings should be changed as well, I'd be happy to comply (we'd finally get Mary I, Queen of Scots instead of Mary I of Scotland, at the very least), but this proposal was to fill in gaps, not to entirely overhaul naming policies. The big problem as I see it is that we're never sure how to name the articles under discussion so that 1) the titles currently in use are completely inconsistent; and 2) I (and I would imagine others) are dissuaded from actually starting articles on such people because we aren't sure what to call them. I wouldn't want that to be hijacked by discussions of a much broader naming change.

2. "Louis, Duke of Bourgogne" is just weird. "Louis, Duke of Burgundy" is arguable, I think, and might be more appropriate. But the basic principle still stands that France should be treated differently. Why? Because actual English convention is to use French titles for French aristocracy. It is not the convention to do this for Spanish or German aristocracy, for the most part. French is the most familiar foreign language to English-speakers (and to Anglophone historians). I've noted before that most encyclopedias call the French regent from 1715-1723 the "Duc d'Orléans" and not the "Duke of Orleans". On the other hand, most call the Spanish general the "Duke of Alva" not the "Duque d'Alva". Just trying to follow standard usage. john k 16:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of course, I completely forgot that there's an English name for Bourgogne; I meant to say "What's wrong with Louis, Duke of Burgundy?". I would be happy to have consistency, but if the use of French titles in English is that common, I guess Wikipedia is not the place to try and change it. (This argument is kind of the same as the reason to have Infante of Spain rather than Prince of Spain, right? As English is not my first language, I have trouble seeing these nuances sometimes.) -- Jao 23:26, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's not really clearcut - of all the French nobility, Dukes of Burgundy and Brittany are by far the least likely to have the French name used, ever. Probably because the French and English names are so considerably different, unlike the case with, say, Artois, Provence, or Orleans. But, yes, the argument is similar to using "Infante of Spain", although in that case it's more complicated, since "Prince" is a different word in Spanish from "Infant", iirc. So, basically, in English we tend to use French titles for French people, but not always. We tend to use English titles for everybody else, although occasionally Germans, Italians, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese will get native-language titles. But drawing the line at French/non-French seems to be the way that best combines common usage with some kind of rational order. john k 00:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having dug through a pile of continental nobility lately, I have to say I favor using the native names for the titles, not only because it's often the most common usage in Enmglish, but it also eliminates the use of doubtful translations (the 1911EB is positively comical in its attempts to translate Japanese titles as "count" for instance). In addition, we have a principle of using people's names as they used them, without attempting to invent translation, so the Italians don't do "Giorgio Washington", and if "duc de Broglie" is part of a name, it should be left alone. On the other hand, "Elector" still seems preferable to "Kurfürst". I'd also suggest allowing more exceptions to the default; common usage has often settled on shorter names for a good reason. The habit of longer names also tends to result in excessive free links, since it would take dozens of redirs to catch all the missing accents, capitalizations, ad nauseam. The world of continental nobility is not nearly so neat and tidy as the British peerage, it would be pretty unnatural to try to force it. Stan 03:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, my reaction is varied. Of course, I agree with you fully on French nobility. I can certainly be persuaded on other Romance language area nobility, although I'm not convinced that we should have the "Duque d'Alva" rather than the "Duke of Alva", whatever he called himself (and, as one gets longer and longer ago, it becomes harder and harder to say what people called themselves). I would rather disagree for German titles - After 1918, certainly we should call someone Hermann Graf von Mullenheim rather than Count Hermann of Mullenheim, or Hermann, Count of Mullenheim. Before that, well...this actually gets into my next point, which relates to semi-sovereign or sovereign sub-king people. Prince-Electors, Dukes of Bavaria, Landgraves of Hesse - these should definitely not use the native title, on the principle elucidated earlier. We've never used monarchs names as they used them, without attempting to invent translation - we use the form most commonly used in English, as far as that can be determined. The same should be done for these kind of people, even if they aren't kings. In terms of redirects - I think we're stuck with them, no matter what. These people's names are so complicated that no matter what is decided upon, you're going to have to set up a bunch of redirects. john k 14:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I had thought that the Japanese title translations were fairly standardized - one still sees them, I think, as when "Prince Konoe" is talked about, or what not. At any rate, I was mostly talking about European nobility, rather than extra-European. john k 14:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's been significantly more than a week, and predictably, I've received very few comments. In particular, nobody has expressed any opinions on the parts of my proposal where I wasn't sure what to do. So, I'll ask the questions again:

1. Should French nobility use English or French-style ordinals? (i.e. "3rd" or "3eme"?)
2. Should titles for French nobility be capitalized or not? (i.e. "duc" or "Duc"?)
3. Given that there's been objection made, do people think that non-French European titled nobility should use the English or native forms of their title? (i.e. "Duke" or "Duque" for a Spaniard; or "Count" or "Graf" for a German)

That said, there seemed to be no continued objections to my proposals for sub-kingly monarchs or use of the ordinal "I". I will add these changes to the proposal page later today. john k 17:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. Hmm - my instinct is to use the English ordinals as "3rd" just strikes me as more natural than "3eme", regardless of the form of title.
2. I haven't any books to hand to check but isn't it the English writing convention to capitalist the titles?
3. Yes, although with possibilities for very well known exceptions.

Timrollpickering 22:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the third question, do you mean they should use the English names? Because it wasn't a yes or no. The other points seem sensible, although English convention with regard to "duc" vs. "Duc" seems highly unclear - especially since many sources now cease to capitalize even British noble titles (e.g., I read a whole book on the 5th Earl of Argyll which referred to him throughout as the "earl of Argyll".) john k 23:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be expected that non-English titles can only be translated if in fact there is a single correct translation. For instance, Graf says "a count or an earl", which is not exactly the clear definition that one would want for a translation! I agree that "3rd" seems more sensible that "3eme", so much for trying to preserve native form. BTW, is there no possibility of an authoritative style manual? EB seems to use one, they're reasonably self-consistent, but what manual? Stan 04:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that EB is using its own internal stylebook, a la the New York Times, rather than relying exclusively on a standard stylebook. Mowens35 12:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Although it was once standard to translate "Graf," "Comte," "Conte," "Conde," and so forth as "Earl," and it remains standard to translate earl into those languages by those words, at present "earl" only refers to the British peers holding those titles. The standard translation into English of all those words when referring to continental titles is always "Count." john k 05:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

hi k. this topic is indeed difficult, and I have to constantly do battles about this issue.

I think we should keep the french nobility the way the french spell it, with titles in small letters (duc, princesse, etc...). The english name can be incorporated into the article, so a search function will always find it. I know that alot of people have a problem with this (this is an "english" only website, etc etc etc..), nevertheless I am still sticking to this point of view. Therefore, German noble titles should also be in German I think. The reason is this: how would you ever translate a name like "Karl Ritter von Ghega". if this would be an english-only site, then we would have to translate this gentleman into "Charles Knight of Ghega". which is absolutely ridiculous. another case is "Otto Graf Lambsdorff". correctly, he would have to be spelled "Count Otto Lambsdorff". however, since 1919, noble titles in Germany have been incorporated into personal names. so it´s best to stick to the german version I think.

the other side I have kept on hearing is to use the name, that they are most known under, not under their original names. Problems are attached with that approach as well though, because how do you determine which is the most common version in english?

basically in that case, there is not one-fits-all solution. in cases where people are not so well known, do the original name. and if it´s someone much more well known (for example Archduke Charles, instead of Erzherzog Karl) then probably do an english translation. I personally would still prefer the original version though, but I can see how doing a search would be difficult in that case.. let me know what you think. cheers Antares911 00:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First, a minor point - whatever the merits of using "His Holiness," they don't have to do with naming conventions, which have to do with how you title an article. So I've reverted that change.

Second point - We've been having a dispute over at Talk:Schismatic Pope Alexander V (or whatever it is by the time you read this), about how to deal with article titles for antipopes. Nat Krause and others seem to dislike the use of "Antipope" in article titles, and feel it is POV, in that wikipedia is determining that these people were not really pope. I don't think this is right - we are calling them antipope because they are normally recognized as antipopes by other people, and because nobody anymore recognizes them as having actually been pope. The issue with Alexander V is more complicated, since it has not been definitively stated that he necessarily was an antipope. I'm not sure how to deal with this. But I do think we need a real standard for how to title articles on antipopes. john k 14:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A couple points: John Kenney makes a good point that few people living would have a problem with describing antipopes as antipopes. Still, I'm not convinced that it can ever be really NPOV to call somebody something unless both a) it is widely accepted in the present, and b) it would have been acceptable to the person in question. There may be times when it would be unavoidable to make such a comment in the article, but it should be avoided as much as possible in the article titles. Certainly, an antipope would have vigorously debated being called an antipope. Similarly, it doesn't seem very advisable to me to label anyone as a pope unless they are very widely accepted as such by the relevant followers. As an alternative, I would prefer to use personal names, particularly in the cases of people, such as Baldassare Cossa / Antipope John XXIII, who are fairly well known by that name; or else, to use standard disambiguation measures, such as (papal claimant) or (timeperiod papal claimant), i.e. Alexander V (papal claimant) or John XXIII (15th century papal claimant). Another option, which is in use in some pages, has rival popes as Avignon Pope Thisandthat or perhaps Pisan Pope Suchandsuch. This is okay, but it strikes me as a little nouvelle (I don't know if other sources ever use this convention), possibly a little confusing for readers who don't know what a "Pisan Pope" means, and possibly misleading, as in the case of Alexander V, who may well have had a lot of followers, during and after his life, outside of the Pisan Party. This convention might also not be generalizable to all antipopes. - Nat Krause 09:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This may have been discussed in previous archives but Wiki stylebook indicates that the titles of article about foreign rulers and royals should reference the closest English equivalent of their names. Wiki's articles about the Spanish royal family, however, use their Spanish names -- ie Juan Carlos, Felipe, Sofia, et cetera -- as do those for the present Swedish king and his wife -- Carl XVI Gustaf and Silvia. Wiki stylebook seems to dictate that this usage is incorrect, and that we should be referring to them as John Charles, Philip, Sophia, Charles XVI Gustavus, and Sylvia. Non-royal heads of state, however, keep their original names, seemingly no matter what, ie Nicolae Ceaucescu and Mikhail Gorbachev, which seems illogical. I have read the relevant passages re naming conventions over and over and still come to this conclusion. Can somebody explain, succinctly, to me where I am perhaps misreading the citation? If indeed I am? Mowens35 12:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I've said before, my impression is that is that we are not to use the anglicized name, but the most common name used in English. This is in line with our general policy. In many cases, the anglicized form is not used, and the original form is. It would be absurd to anglicize in situations where the name is never anglicized, like Juan Carlos. But it would also be unfortunate to have to use Felipe II of Spain, which is highly uncommon, as well. Obviously, there's no scientific way to determine which title is right, but the system seems to generally work pretty well. john k 03:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)