Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility

Latest comment: 2 days ago by in topic Purge consorts of pretenders?

Duchess of Swabia at AfD - survived but needs attention Edit

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duchess of Swabia. Although clearly relevant to this project it wasn't tagged as such until I did so a few minutes ago.. PamD 09:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It survived AfD, but the article needs some improvement. It was created in 2010 by The Emperor's New Spy who seems to edit intermittently but hasn't contributed in the last 13 months. Perhaps someone here could explain, in the lead, how the list starts at 876 when the first Duke of Swabia is shown in 909? Not my territory: I saw the list showing up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts, and contributed a brief lead as better than nothing, and a couple of other editors have tidied it up too, but perhaps a nobility enthusiast might like to improve it? PamD 09:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isabella II discussion Edit

There is a discussion at Talk:Isabella II of Spain#Spain's only queen regnant. You are welcome joining it. --Thinker78 (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Project-independent quality assessments Edit

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charles III is a GA candidate Edit

ICYMI, Charles III has been nominated for a GA review. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion opened regarding early Chinese nobility Edit


There is a proposal to make changes to how surnames of early Chinese figures are displayed in a particular infobox at Talk:Chinese surname#Proposal to make changes to a protected template regarding Chinese surnames that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Folly Mox (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article reassessment for Coronation Edit

Coronation has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Separating Ethiopian regnal lists from lists of monarchs Edit

Hi all. Some of you who are familiar with distinguisting regnal lists from lists of monarchs (at least more familiar than I am) may find it interesting to take a look at Talk:List of legendary monarchs of Ethiopia#Scope. Perhaps you could help a hand? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Srnec perhaps you'll find this interesting? You've done a good job writing regnal list in 2018. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Foo of Bar versus List of foos of Bar Edit

Hi, I'm often seeing that many of pages on various Wikipedias are named Foo of Bar (in which foo is a royal or noble title, and Bar the area that title applied to), but also include a List of foos of Bar. This makes such pages both an article about what the title means and the history of the title, and then a list of people who held that title. In a way, that makes them halfway houses between articles and lists, which is quite annoying for categorisation and linking purposes. I myself am somewhat guilty in participating in this, leading to an issue at Wikidata. So how do I prevent such issues, and (help) solve existing issues?

What conventions do we apply in such cases?

  • A. Concise intro about title, then just a list of holders: Surely some introduction to a List of foos of Bar is acceptable and reasonable (e.g. List of kings of Sparta), as long as it's concise, and some claims that could be challenged are supported by RS; but after that, it should just be a list of holders.
  • B. Separate pages about title and about list of holders: If it takes up a lot of space just to explain a title and its history, it's better to separate title and list. E.g. King of France redirects to List of French monarchs, but there is a whole separate article for Style of the French sovereign. Roman emperor is such a large topic that it has several Roman emperor#Lists, and even the main List of Roman emperors is currently being recommended for a split.

At what point should we separate the list of holders from the title article? For example, the lead sections of Duke of Brabant and Count of Flanders may still be acceptable, but Grand Prince of Vladimir#Overview and Grand Prince of Kiev#Background (a lot of which I added myself) seems to be quite a lot. How about Count of Holland, which has two sections that are not entirely devoted to a list of holders? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Signatures of medieval French monarchs Edit

I was looking through Wikimedia and found charters of Philip VI of France, Charles V of France, and Charles VI of France. They all have the kings seals but they also have what looks like signatures beside the seals. Are those the signatures of the kings? ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (TalkContribs) 19:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article reassessment for Caligula Edit

Caligula has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article reassessment for Monarchies in Europe Edit

Monarchies in Europe has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infant rulers Edit

Is an infant with a regent considered a ruler? See for instance Chuzi II, who I presume his mother was the regent. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there is an underaged royal who becomes the monarch, they will be given a regent, but they are still technically the monarch. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a ruling monarch though, I guess. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We categorise them as Category:Child monarchs. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My question is regarding the first sentence of the article, which states he was a ruler. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"royal" consorts Edit

Should we remove the word "royal" from lists and categories in which none, or not all, of the consorts were married to an actual king or equivalent royal monarch? Example: Category:Lists of duchesses features the word "royal" 14 times, but dukes and duchesses are obviously below the level of "king"/"queen". On the other hand, should we remove it from lists and categories of consorts which were all royal, so that the word "royal" is redundant? It is clear that "consorts" always refers to dynastic spouses, so there is no need to add "royal" where that is obvious. There is no List of ducal consorts of Foo, and no List of Fooian ducal consorts, anywhere on English Wikipedia. We just don't need the adjective 'ducal'. Why would we need the adjective 'royal'?

  • Cases where "royal" is correct, but adds nothing: For instance, all consorts in List of Belgian royal consorts are royal, so "royal" is not needed to distinguish "royal" Belgian consorts from "non-royal" Belgian consorts, because all of them have been royal.
  • Cases where "royal" is incorrect, and adds nothing: In cases such as List of Hessian royal consorts it is always incorrect to call them "royal", because landgraves and grand dukes are always below the level of "king/queen", and although whether "prince-electors" or "electors" were "royal" or not varied in time and place, it never applied to Hesse. Besides, the word "royal" doesn't really add anything significant or necessary to just saying List of Hessian consorts (which already redirects to List of Hessian royal consorts anyway). "royal" is not needed to distinguish "non-royal" Hessian consorts, because all of them were non-royal.
Many such cases can be seen in both Category:Lists of duchesses and Category:Lists of royal consorts. E.g. why are List of Mexican imperial consorts and List of Luxembourgish consorts categorised as "royal" consorts? None of then were married to kings or queens regnant, only to emperors/empresses regnant, counts/countesses regnant, dukes/duchesses regnant, and grand dukes/duchesses regnant.
  • Cases where "royal" applies only to some consorts, but not others: In the List of Bavarian royal consorts, "royal" is incorrect for all consorts from c. 556 to 1797, and it is only correct from 1797 to 1918. In other words, for a total of 1362 years of Bavarian consorts, "royal" applies only for 121 years, to only 4 out of 99 consorts in total. Therefore, I really don't think "royal" is justified, especially as long as we do not split this list into ducal, electoral and royal consorts, in which case "royal" would be a necessary distinguishing addition. (But I don't see a reason why we should split it; the article is fine as it is. It just has a needless extra word "royal" in the title, which is misleading for 95 out of 99 people mentioned in it).

Proposed solution: Let's just get rid of all mentions of "royal" in every category and list of consorts of Foo or list of Fooian consorts, unless and until there is a separate list for non-royal consorts of Foo or Fooian consorts which makes "royal" a necessary distinguishing addition. Examples:

Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Example: Category:Lists of duchesses features the word "royal" 14 times, but dukes and duchesses are obviously below the level of "king"/"queen". That doesn't mean they're not royal. Many European ducal and grand ducal families are considered to be royal families and have royal titles (e.g. Highness). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Granted, but that would mean they are royal for reasons other than being duchesses, and it would only apply in individual cases rather than something we can assume to apply to all duchesses. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome @Surtsicna and Marcocapelle: from the "Bosnian queens" CfR, which inspired me to ask this broader question. As you can see, we currently already have dozens of lists and categories for consorts of monarchs (emperors/kings/dukes/counts etc. male or female) where the word "royal" is not necessary, such as Milan (List of Milanese consorts) and Luxemb(o)urg (List of Luxembourgish consorts). In Category:Lists of duchesses, 53 out of 67 lists do not mention 'royal'. I think Bosnia doesn't need it either. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My concern is that we are reinventing the word "consort". The word "consort" means "a husband or wife, especially of a monarch", "a companion or partner". One therefore cannot be a "consort of Bosnia". Using such fancy words where plain English would suffice risks confusing people who do not know them; worse yet, using the word incorrectly risks confusing those who do know them. Category:Consorts of Bosnia could reasonably include all married people from Bosnia. Ditto for article titles such as List of Milanese consorts. Surtsicna (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"a husband or wife, especially of a monarch" is exactly how we are using it, aren't we? Otherwise we would be using "spouse". We are not reinventing anything, it already is plain English. Category:Consorts of monarchs is a child of Category:Spouses of heads of state, and Category:Monarchs, so we are calling any spouse of any monarch a consort, whether they be category:queens consort, category:empresses consort, grand princesses consort, countesses consort etc.
The only other time when English Wikipedia appears to use consort for categorisation purposes is Category:Consorts of deities, and Category:Viceregal consorts (but in some of the Australian and New Zealand cases, the wording "Spouses of Fooian Governors" is preferred). Thus, "consort" has a very strong dynastic connotation, and is rarely – if ever – used outside dynastic contexts (such as deities).
By contrast, I would argue that using fancy words such as "royal" to apply to duchesses is actually reinventing the word "royal". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we are using the word "consort" in the sense of "a husband or wife", then we are positively dumb having titles such as List of consorts of Bosnia. One cannot be the spouse of a country. And what does "Milanese spouses" (as in "Milanese consorts") mean? Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Surtsicna on the basic point of English usage: "Milanese consorts" and especially "Consorts of Bosnia" sound strange to my ear. (The latter would be, like, people who were married to Bosnia?) --JBL (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are using the word "consort" in the sense of "a husband or wife of a monarch". So if I had been the husband of Helen of Bosnia, I would have been a "consort [=husband of the monarch] of Bosnia". It doesn't mean I was married to the country.
"Milanese consorts" in List of Milanese consorts means "wives of the lords and dukes of Milan". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe I should make it even easier. There is no List of ducal consorts of Foo, and no List of Fooian ducal consorts, anywhere on English Wikipedia. We just don't need the adjective 'ducal'. Why would we need the adjective 'royal'? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... because the construction "consorts of Bosnia" in English doesn't work, that's why. In some contexts, it can be understood that "consort" means "a spouse of a monarch", but when you pair it with "of Bosnia" that overrules the implicit [of a monarch]. I mean, I don't have a theoretical explanation for this, I'm just telling you, as a native speaker of English, how it sounds -- I don't think any native English speaker (at least not of my dialect) would ever write what you're proposing and expect it to be understood in the way you want. --JBL (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Consorts of the rulers of Bosnia" means one thing. "Consorts of Bosnia" does not mean the same thing; what it means instead is nonsensical. The theoretical explanation here is that the word "consort" does not mean "spouse of a monarch" and cannot be used in place of that phrase. What "consort" means, per dictionary definitions, is spouse or companion; it being most commonly used in reference to the spouses of monarchs and deities does not alter its meaning. Surtsicna (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Despite the fact that we have so many lists of consorts I can understand that it may sound nonsensical when you overthink it. I don't think there is a general solution right now, we'd better develop some further case history - as currently happens for Bosnia. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You do not have to overthink it for it to sound nonsensical. You just have to know what the word means. Surtsicna (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought I knew what "consorts" meant, but now I'm not so sure. See my comment below. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm prepared to go along with Marcocapelle's Alt rename of Category:Bosnian queens to Category:Queens consort of Bosnia as a first step. It could be that I am wrong about List of Milanese consorts and such; that we really need to add something in order to clarify they weren't married to the country, but to whoever was running the country. I do maintain that "royal" is often not the correct word to add, so at least for now I propose a case-by-case approach. We'll see where that gets us. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Observation: I must say that JBL saying that native English speakers wouldn't write or say consorts of Foo or Fooian consorts gives me some pause. It sounds natural to me, but I'm a non-native English speaker, so admittedly, my opinion shouldn't be given too much linguistic weight. I was also surprised to find almost no sources on Google Books or Google Scholar using a formulation like Milanese/French/Bavarian consorts. This raises the question why in Category:Lists of duchesses, 53 out of 67 lists do not mention 'royal' (or 'ducal', 'comital', 'imperial' etc.), yet nobody seems to have noticed until now that this is – apparently – a linguistic problem in English. I think developing some further case history, as Marcocapelle suggests, is the right thing to do. But before we do, I think we can already look at decisions such as why List of Austrian consorts was renamed to List of Austrian royal consorts in 2021, and back to List of Austrian consorts in 2022. I'll start trying to answer those questions now, because they may already contain certain precedents that we should take into consideration when deciding this question. Whatever the case, I'll freely admit that at this point, I'm not as confident that we can just remove the word "royal" from all these lists as I was earlier today. We'll see in which direction this exchange goes. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This confirms two points of contention we have seen above. 'Consort' can technically mean anyone's spouse, even though it has strong connections with dynastic spouses of monarchs. On the other hand, 'royal' doesn't quite cut it if we are talking about consorts of non-royal dynastic monarchs/rulers, such as dukes (i.e. duchesses consort). The Austrian renamings show the same tension that we see above. Unfortunately, both of them seem to have been undiscussed moves; there is no talk of this on the talk page. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As far as I can tell, Keivan.f did hundreds of undiscussed moves of Fooian consorts to Fooian royal consorts on 14 January 2021. Some of them have been reverted later, such as the Austrian example above. I do not see any discussion anywhere. Keivan.f just repeatedly said Anyone in Foo who's married is a consort for the first hundred-ish edits, then stopped writing edit summaries altogether, and for the last moves of the day started invoking per WP:TITLECON, perhaps because by that point Keivan.f had single-handedly made Fooian royal consorts the new self-invented standard overnight. If this was backed by consensus, I would have no problem with it, but I don't think it is. These are all bold undiscussed moves, some of which have been reverted since. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unfortunately I think this means no consensus-based precedent has ever been set. These undiscussed renamings and partial reversions happened within the last 2.5 years, and nobody else seems to have noticed. I think that means we need to establish a new consensus here for the first time.
    The only precedent I really see is Peter Ormond moving several pages on 28 December 2021 from List of consorts of Foo to List of Fooian consorts because of consistency. But Marcocapelle and I recently established Suggestion B that we should rename/rescope all Fooian monarchs to Monarchs of Foo, especially when there is doubt which one is more correct. E.g. if a noblewoman born in Milan marries a king of Bosnia, she is a Milanese queen consort by "nationality", but surely, we are more interested in the fact that she is a consort of the king of Bosnia, regardless of where she was born. The renaming of Category:Cypriot monarchs to Category:Monarchs of Cyprus confirmed the Suggestion B principle. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Some lists such as List of Luxembourgish consorts / List of consorts of Luxembourg have never had 'royal' or any other such adjective in the title. Inexplicably, someone did add it to Category:Queens consort at some point (even though Luxembourg has never had any queens or kings), but Aciram correctly removed that miscat in 2020. I cannot help but get the impression that some people associate the word 'consort' automatically with 'royal', 'queen' or 'king', even in countries that have never had kings, queens or otherwise been royal. There is a lot of misnaming and miscategorisation going on here. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    PS: This doesn't mean we don't need adjectives such as 'royal' or 'ducal', just that if we do, they should be applied correctly. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dukes, Duchesses, Grand Dukes, Grand Duchesses, Landgraves, Landgravines, Margraves, Margravines, Electors, Electresses, etc., are all still royal, they’re just below the level of rank of King and Queen (and Emperor and Empress, etc.). - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If so, at what point do we no longer speak of 'royal'? Is every dynastic ruler automatically 'royal'? Royal literally just means "kingly", from French roy = "king". I really don't think it should be applied to any spouse below (or above) the royal (=kingly) level; those are by definition non-royal because they aren't married to kings/queens. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of banesses and queens of Bosnia moved to List of medieval Bosnian consorts Edit

Does this help? I don't think so. If I correctly understood what everyone has been saying here, this just means "List of medieval Bosnians who were married". @Surtsicna @Marcocapelle @JayBeeEll you all convinced me that it was important to go for the phrasing queens consort of Bosnia. Where were you during this RM? I could have really used your support. Now a number of people who haven't read this whole discussion (despite me linking to it and explaining everything) have voted to turn it into something else that doesn't help clarify things the way we agreed to clarify them, and you were absent. Of course, you're not required to participate, but I do feel a bit abandoned.... The Milanese RM Talk:List of Milanese consorts#Requested move 13 July 2023 aren't doing too well either (although at least Marcocapelle supports it, thanks!). What can we best do next in order to try and have article/list names and category names of royalty and nobility align better? Right now it's people here and people there having very different discussions. Can we somehow centralise the conversation? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nederlandse Leeuw this sounds a lot like a WP:TANTRUM because the page didn't get moved to where you wanted it. In any case, consort does not just mean "someone who was married". According to Google English Dictionary (taken from Oxford Languages), "consort" means a wife, husband, or companion, in particular the spouse of a reigning monarch (emphasis my own). And in any case, are your average people going around referring to their husband/wife/spouse as "my consort"? Probably not. I don't see any cause for confusion there. estar8806 (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm to be honest, the first half might look that way, but the comment above wasn't really meant like that. It was more a frustrated admission of failure to accomplish what I was trying and expecting to achieve. I thought I was in it together with the people with whom I thought I had established a consensus here. But they barely participated in the RMs we had discussed above (which they weren't required to, of course, but I had expected them to because we had all agreed here). At the RMs themselves, the consensus I thought we had established here was dismissed as irrelevant, or at least interpreted very differently over there. I didn't expect that, and that was disappointing. At the same time, I tried to be constructive and ask for what we could best do next, because evidently there had been essentially separate, different conversations resulting in separate, different agreements about the same topic. The conclusions about renaming the category and the list are at odds with each other right now.
By the way, I made the exact same argument based on the exact same dictionary earlier, and yet, this was rejected for other reasons, or based on other dictionaries etc. Moreover, I had also argued that the word "consort" wouldn't be used nowadays anymore in modern English except in dynastic contexts, but was also dismissed. So I wish I could agree with you, but unfortunately it's not that simple.
For now, I'm not really looking for taking the lead in solving this question, but if you or anyone else would like to take up the challenge, go ahead. I might participate, but I won't lead. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion of interest Edit

A discussion which may be of interest to the members of this group can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Nicky Hilton Rothschild#Requested move 23 June 2023 Edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nicky Hilton Rothschild#Requested move 23 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Louis, Duke of Burgundy#Requested move 26 June 2023 Edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Louis, Duke of Burgundy#Requested move 26 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Favonian (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Were all 'murdered monarchs' also 'dethroned monarchs'? Edit

Should Category:Murdered monarchs be a subcategory of Category:Dethroned monarchs? Or can one person not be categorised as both simultaneously (as this is either redundant, or will lead to a logical contradiction)?

I'm asking because Anula of Anuradhapura is both in Category:Dethroned monarchs and Category:1st-century BC murdered monarchs. Sorry if this may sound strange or like linguistic nitpicking. But it seems to me that:

  • A: If you wikt:dethrone a monarch who is in office, but you continue to let them live (at least for some time), they are simply no longer a "monarch", because they are no longer in office. If they continue to claim to be the legitimate monarch, that makes them a pretender (with no prejudice against whether that claim is legitimate or not).
  • B: If you murder a monarch who is in office, then it is redundant to say you've dethroned them; due to being dead, they are automatically no longer a "monarch" either, because they are no longer in office.
  • C: If you murder someone after dethroning them, you've not murdered a "monarch", but an "ex-monarch", because they had already been out of office.
  • D: If you execute someone after dethroning them, you've not executed a "monarch", but an "ex-monarch", because they had already been out of office.

I know that it can be a point of view (POV) whether the monarch was really dethroned or not, and especially whether they were still the (legitimate) monarch or not. The classic historiographical problem is the Execution of Louis XVI: was that "putting citizen Louis Capet to justice" (D; as revolutionaries saw it) or "murdering/lynching the rightful King Louis XVI" (B; as royalists saw it)? I can imagine royalists will have maintained that Louis was the rightful monarch of France until his death, even though I think there is consensus in historiography that at least the Insurrection of 10 August 1792 and Louis' subsequent imprisonment (13 August 1792 to 21 January 1793) in the Temple fortress until his execution represents a dethronement. That is scenario A, which could still lead to C or D, depending on whether you consider the Trial of Louis XVI to have been legitimate or illegitimate. But scenario B is no longer possible, because Louis was evidently not in office anymore while imprisoned in the Temple.

All this leads me to the conclusion that we cannot simultaneously put people in the Category:Dethroned monarchs and the Category:Murdered monarchs trees. Because it leads to a logical contradiction. The only scenario in which I can see that happening is that if Hank becomes the monarch of Foo, is dethroned but allowed to live (A), and becomes the monarch of Bar, and is then murdered while in office (B). That means Hank is the dethroned monarch of Foo, and the murdered monarch of Bar, but not the dethroned monarch of Bar. Hank would only be in Category:Dethroned monarchs because of Foo. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In normal language, I don't think a murdered monarch is referred to as "dethroned" (your category B). Dethroned implies that there is life after being a monarch. A murdered monarch is a murdered monarch. They cease to be a monarch for the same reason a monarch dies of natural causes, death, not because they are dethroned. They remain a monarch to the end of their life. We don't refer to dead monarchs as "ex-monarchs". DeCausa (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My thoughts exactly. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Completely agree with both of you. --Marbe166 (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Almost completely agree, except that in "B" I would classify a ruling monarch that's been murdered as a "past monarch", rather than "no longer a monarch"; a very small distinction but of some importance when it comes to legitimacy/succession: fairly often in history a monarch is murdered only for their heir to ascend the throne, often deriving their legitimacy from shared blood with the previous monarch. I would consider "no longer a monarch" to be more aligned with "ex-monarch", as usually, both imply the line of succession has been vastly disrupted or even ended; while palace/familial coups where a monarch's brother/son/mother's brother's uncle's son seizes the throne do occur, and usually rely upon the legitimacy of the predecessor with some (often extraneous) justification for why the new guy should be able to take the throne, by and large, most cases where the previous monarch is in exile/prison, the line of succession, and the legitimacy derived therefrom, are ended. The distinction, therefore, is that a "past monarch" is fully legitimate and would have continued to be until the end of time or another cause of death, anyone who is "no longer a monarch" has presumably lost their legitimacy ipso facto, the same as an "ex-monarch". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the sake of clarity and a TL;DR: I agree that: For "A", a dethroned monarch is either "no longer a monarch" or a pretender (if they still press the claim), and that for "C" and "D", if a monarch is dethroned and then murdered or dethroned and then executed, they are an "ex-monarch" at the time of death. My only quibble is that per "B", I believe that monarchs who are murdered while ruling should not be categorized as "no longer a monarch" but as a "past monarch", due to legitimacy considerations. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see any distinction between "no longer a monarch" and an "ex-monarch". In normal language, they are interchangeable. But, in any case, I don't think it matters to the question originally posed on the murdered/dethroned categorisations. DeCausa (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to add that there could be some factual ambiguity about whether a monarch was just murdered or dethroned and then murdered during or shortly after the coup. I'm thinking about some of the Roman and Byzantine emperors for example. There may be a case for some of these being in both categories. But that wouldn't mean Category:Murdered monarchs should be a subcategory of Category:Dethroned monarchs, which is the point of the question. DeCausa (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW - Louis XVI was 'no longer' monarch, by the time he was executed. France had already been a republic for about four months. Examples of former monarchs 'might of' been murdered, while their countries were still monarchies, are England's Edward II & Richard II. GoodDay (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move discussion for William of the United Kingdom Edit

(non-automated message) Greetings, members of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility! I have initiated a move request here that pertains to multiple royals. While participation is optional, I would appreciate any feedback! (Please note that I have not initiated this process before, so I apologize if this message is unnecessary.) Hurricane Andrew (444) 23:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of rulers of Provence has an RFC Edit


List of rulers of Provence has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 19:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of Llywelyn the Great move discussion Edit

Hello, I have opened a discussion at Llywelyn the Great about moving the article to 'Llywelyn ab Iorwerth'. If you would like to participate please do so, particularly if you are familiar with Welsh history. Thank you, A.D.Hope (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second-longest reigning monarch of Denmark Edit

There is a discussion about including said information in the lead of the page Margrethe II of Denmark. The thread is Talk:Margrethe II of Denmark#Removal of notable length of reign text from lead. Your input is appreciated. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article reassessment for David III of Tao Edit

David III of Tao has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Purge consorts of pretenders? Edit

I find it strange that List of royal consorts of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies doesn't end in 1861, and that List of Greek royal consorts doesn't end in 1973. Those kingdoms ceased to exist. It seems pseudohistorical to me to list the consorts of pretenders as if they actually still reigned as monarchs. Should we purge them? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No opposition from me. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me, either. --JBL (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've removed such lists from other pages as well. (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion of interest at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation Edit

(non-automated message) Greetings, fellow members of WP:ROYALTY! For your information, a discussion on WikiProject Disambiguation's talk page is ongoing regarding the appropriateness of including potential regnal names of European and Jordanian heirs in disambiguation pages related to royalty. Given the relevance to our topic focus, I would especially appreciate any well-informed opinions from our community! Thank you, Hurricane Andrew (444) 03:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New royalty and nobility article creation tool Edit

Hi everyone!

I noticed that plenty of articles relevant to this WikiProject were being created without going through the AfC process. I figured some of you might be interested in keeping tabs on those "ghost" articles, so I enlisted the help of User:AlexNewArtBot to generate a report of new articles that fit some criteria (for example, the presence of the word "marquess"). You can always see the Rules and Match log to see what triggered the bot to display some results over others. A new report is generated every 24 hours, usually between 22:00 and 00:00 (UTC).

If you like it, and given enough time for us to tweak it to avoid false positives, do you think it would be a useful addition to the WikiProject page, under the "articles for creation" part of the bot-assisted list?

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2023-09-23 22:49 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.

Cheers, Pilaz (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:William I (disambiguation)#Requested move 10 August 2023 Edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:William I (disambiguation)#Requested move 10 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 14:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Oscar I of Sweden#Requested move 17 August 2023 Edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Oscar I of Sweden#Requested move 17 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans#Requested move 20 August 2023 Edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans#Requested move 20 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 21:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Eric XIV of Sweden#Requested move 3 September 2023 Edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eric XIV of Sweden#Requested move 3 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welsh royalty discussions Edit


There are discussions concerning potential OR, RS and SCOPE issues on Talk:House of Aberffraw (article) and Talk:King of Wales (article), but could apply to other related articles. Editors of this project may be interested in these discussions, specifically those with an interest/expertise in Welsh history. Any contributions to the discussions would be welcomed. Thanks/Diolch DankJae 23:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]