Category talk:Child monarchs

This is a potentially very large and problematic category. Is the cut off point the age of 16, or what? Is "ruler" synoymous with "monarch"? Does it extend to any child monarch, even though they never ruled in any meaningful sense e.g. because they died in infancy (there are examples of this)? PatGallacher (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this category is potentially huge, and the cut-offs are admittedly fuzzy. This category may end up needing sub-categories. I will tackle some justification and definition under three headings below.--Iacobus (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Significance of rule by a child

Child rulers are historically significant. In the absence of the ruler’s ability to exercise actual rule due to their minority, rivalries between competing interests become more heated and exposed. Sometimes the minority of a ruler can lead to consitutional change or clarification. Other rulers can emerge from their minority with a renewed conviction of the importance of their own power (as did Louis XIV). Other regencies can lead to national weakness (eg. Honorius or Valentinian III). It is often through a regency for a minor that women are able to exercise actual power (eg Elagabalus and Alexander Severus, or Otto III).--Iacobus (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Defining “child”

This category should include any ruler who entered into their office below the age of majority. This includes those who died before their majority, as well as those who lived longer.

While legal majority today is generally at age 18, rulers in the past seem to have reached majority and dismissed their regents by around age 15 or 16. Under 16 seems like a useful limit. If a ruler is recorded as exercising personal rule, without regents, at age 15, then I would suggest that they not count as children for the purpose of this category.--Iacobus (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Defining “ruler”

As a general rule I would suggest that this be defined as those whose office is invested with temporal and sovereign authority.

By “temporal”, I mean to exclude those whose office has a purely religious authority. Their rule must extend to the normal machinery of government over some defined territory.

By “sovereign”, I mean those whose authority is paramount in their particular territory or jurisdiction. An emperor, king or sovereign prince would fut snugly into this definition. I would exclude those who hold courtesy titles (eg. Prince of Wales, King of the Romans, etc) and the like, as well as those invested with royal or imperial title as an adjunct to another’s rule (eg. a reigning king naming his son king to ensure the succession). I would suggest that holders of aristocratic titles be excluded unless their rule can be considered to be effectively sovereign and free within their territory.

I would extend the definition of ruler to those who died in their minority. Even though they were unable to exercise any actual rule, their office is invested with that authority, and others exercised rule in their name.

I would suggest that usurpers or pretenders be generally excluded, unless it is shown that effective rule was exercised in their name.

Due to their nature, child rulers will almost always be hereditary monarchs. However, I could envisage some exceptions (eg. republics with strong dynastic rule), so I have entitled the category “Child rulers” instead of “Child monarchs.”--Iacobus (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "Head of State" is a better term than ruler? But I won't change the category title unless others think it worth it.--Iacobus (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been including some medieval nobility in the category, such as powerful dukes and counts in France (eg. Normandy, Aquitaine, Anjou, Blois, Toulouse). While they were theoretically vassals of, say, the King of France, the relationship was one of suzerainty.--Iacobus (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

British kings

Are you sure the British young kings should be there — they didn't really rule as children — they reigned, but regents ruled on their behalves (regent meaning "they rule"). What think you? † DBD 13:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No child would be included in this list if the criteria was that they personally rule. The purpose of this category remains to group and list those whose office exercises supreme temporal and sovereign authority within a territory. This is significant for the reasons I have outlined. If anyone can think of a better term than "ruler", let me know. For reasons stated, the term "monarch" is restrictive (eg. some Japanese shoguns were children, yet they were not really monarchs, although the shoguns were the rulers of Japan.--Iacobus (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sub-categories

I'm thinking that, to make the category more useful, it needs to be split. I propose the following categories:

• Rulers who died as children
• Rulers deposed as children
• Child rulers who reached majority

Deposed will probably include any abdications. The category titles are as pithy as I can make them.--Iacobus (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that these categories are still too big. I suggest further divisions by nationality. --Nlu (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

By nationality may be too fine-grained, by continent or by era might give more appropriate-sized categories. If you do go my nationality, pick out the 2 or 3 nations with the most entries and stop when the remaining list all fits on one screen. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So far I've done most of the subcategorizing, and I won't be doing any by nationality. That would be a headache! Nationalities come and go. I would be intersted in any other suggestions for subcategorization.--Iacobus (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The feeling seems to be that Category:Child rulers who reached age of majority may still be a little large. I am reluctant to atomise the category too far, both to prevent unnecesary multiplication of categories, and to retain the usefulness of comparing various rulers. May I suggest that "Category:Child rulers who reached majority" be superceded, and "Category: Child rulers" be composed of the following subcategories?

• Child rulers (Ancient) - all child rulers Europe, North Africa & Middle East to c. AD500
• Child rulers (Medieval) - ditto, 500-1500
• Child rulers (Modern) - ditto, after 1500
• Child rulers (Asia) - all child rulers in central Asia, Indian subcontinent & East Asia
• Rulers deposed as children - category unchanged
• Rulers who died as children - category unchanged

The first four categories would include rulers whether they reached age of majority or ended their rule as children. Thus, the rulers in the last two categories would also be represented in one of the first four categories.

No slight is meant by putting all "Asian" rulers in one category. We just don't seem to have enough from this region to split into periods. I have not put Asian rulers into the period categories because the Western focus of these means little as you move east. If heaps of Asian rulers (ie. over 200) appear, then someone can perhaps break that down into appropriate periods.

It would be odd to begin an African category just composed of Ethiopian emperors, so I'm putting them in the Europe/Middle East categories, an area to which the Ethiopians had a connection. If we get heaps more Africans then perhaps a separate category would be appropriate.

As Europe, North Africa and the Middle East form a geocultural unit of conflict and exchange, I thought it appropriate to put them all together into period categories. It does mean some anomalies (eg. the Iranian "Middle Ages" really begins after the Arab conquest in the 640s, not after 500). However, any effort towards simlplicity is bound to throw up anomalies and anachronisms. I'd rather have useful than exactly correct categories.--Iacobus (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

First off, unless your intent is for rulers to be placed into more than one category, you should have sub-categories. Try this:

I would divide the one mega-category into either time or region, but not both. If you do both, do it with sub-categories, like so:

• Rulers deposed as children - category unchanged
• Rulers who died as children - category unchanged
• Child rulers who reached majority

• Asian and Far Eastern child rulers who reached the age of majority - all child rulers in central Asia, Indian subcontinent & East Asia, plus Australia and Pacific Island nations
• European child rulers who reached the age of majority - includes parts of Middle East considered Europe
• African child rulers who reached the age of majority - includes Egypt
• Western Hemisphere Child rulers who reached the age of majority - may be empty category, but need to check for 19th-century underage Latin American puppet-rulers

As needed, split each of these by era, for example:

• European child rulers who reached the age of majority

• Ancient European child rulers who reached the age of majority - through c. A.D. 500
• Medieval European child rulers who reached the age of majority - c. A.D. 500- A.D. 1500
• Modern European child rulers who reached the age of majority - A.D. 1500-present

This solves two problems: One, the "when is the medieval era, really" problem is mooted, and two, it preserves a tree-like structure.

As written, some future editor may put a child ruler from ancient Japan who died as a child in 3 categories: Asia, rulers who died as children, and ancient rulers. By maintaining a hierarchy this won't happen.

In the rare cases of child rulers whose countries which crossed geographies, such as Russia, the ruler may neatly fit into two geographic categories. This is okay if it's not common. This also applies to those who cross era boundaries, such as a European child ruler who ruled from the late 1400s to the early 1500s.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with individuals being in more than one category relating to child rulers. Yes, I could split the Child Rulers who Reached Age of Majority, but it sure makes for clunky category titles. Eliminating Rulers who reached age of majority may lose that grouping, but it allow, say, all ancient child rulers to be compared. Lose one grouping to gain another, perhaps, except that one of the groupings is huge (317 and counting).

Nothing in the Wikipedia guidelines says that categories have to be strictly hierarchical. In the case of my suggestion, there will be two trees, one of which is contained within the other. There would be no need for any ruler to be in three categories. An ancient Japanese ruler who died as a child would only be in Child rulers (Asia) and Rulers who died as children. Most rulers (317 out of 410) would only be in one category. Like I said, the main reason for doing this is to break up a large subcategory, and I think we may as well include rulers in the other two subcategories as well.--Iacobus (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case I would go with either the overlapping categories of time:

note: Every ruler except those whose dates cannot be determined will fall into one of these 3, there will be very few in the top-level category child rulers.

• Child rulers (Ancient) - to c. AD500
• Child rulers (A.D.500-A.D.1500) - 500-1500
• Child rulers (Modern) - after 1500

And space:

• Child rulers (Asia) - all child rulers in central Asia, Indian subcontinent & East Asia
• Child rulers (insert region here) - all child rulers in *region*

with special additional categories for those who never reached adulthood

• Rulers deposed as children - category unchanged
• Rulers who died as children - category unchanged

OR I would go with these non-overlapping categories:

• Child rulers - will include those who reached adulthood who are not in Europe, Asia, or in any other "insert region here" category. This list may be substantial.

• Child rulers (Ancient Europe) - to c. AD500
• Child rulers (A.D.500-A.D.1500 Europe) - 500-1500
• Child rulers (Modern Europe) - after 1500
• Child rulers (Asia) - all child rulers in central Asia, Indian subcontinent & East Asia
• Child rulers (insert region here) - all child rulers in *region*

with special additional overlapping categories for those who never reached adulthood

• Rulers deposed as children - category unchanged
• Rulers who died as children - category unchanged

In this case those who reached adulthood and who were not in Europe, Asia, or one of the "insert region here" categories would be in the main category of "Child Rulers." You might not even need an "Asia" category, you could just promote all of them to the top level. You also might not even need to split up Europe by time, if the European list is small enough.

The simplest split that is workable and compatible with the existing split is:

• Child Rulers - includes up to 197 who do not fit in any other category. If more than 197 then add "Child rulers in Asia" to siphon off a few dozen more.

• Rulers deposed as children - category unchanged
• Rulers who died as children - category unchanged
• Child rulers in Europe

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)