Talk:List of heads of former ruling families/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

India and Pakistan

Jammu and Kashmir

I have observed and reverted vandalism here today, by an IP editor 194.79.189.126. The case of the heavily disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir, can appear complex at first, though it's relatively simple to the neutral observer willing to weigh up the history and compare sources from different conflicting parties engaged in the conflict including India, and Pakistan, and international sources. Accordingly, Karan Singh cannot be a pretender, as he voluntarily gave up his claim to the throne and thus abdicated. Karan Singh was only Prince Regent of the Dogra dynasty, and was never coronated as the Maharaja, even after he and Prime Minister Abdullah forced his father Hari Singh into exile on the Indian-administered side of Kashmir. Later, following abdication Karan Singh took the title of President of Jammu and Kashmir, and was a cabinet minister in the government of India that passed the 26th constitutional amendment of 1971, that by law banned all Indian citizens from holding royal titles. This law would apply to Karan Singh, and his lineage, who appear to have never protested against it. However, the current pretender to the throne, Ankit Love who moved to the United Kingdom as a child in 1989, seized to be an Indian citizen in 2009, and thus is not legally under mandate of the 26th amendment of India. Ankit Love is also a music artist, which I think throws people off at times, as does his surname Love, in relation to an ongoing armed conflict in Asia. Regardless according to both local, and international sources he is from the royal family of Kashmir, and his father Bhim Singh has been a prominent member and political leader of the Dogras for over five decades in the ongoing armed conflict for Kashmir. These national and international sources also carry and highlight news of Ankit Love's claim to the throne, that he made from London, United Kingdom. JuneKennedy (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of current pretenders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Beauharnais pretenders to Italy

This might be just a point of inconsistency rather than anything else, but if the Kingdom of Westphalia, a state entirely made up by Napoleon, is credited as having a pretender, why don't the other states that had Bonaparte or Napoleon-created rulers have pretenders from their line? OK, for many of them succession laws might contradict - for example, if Joseph Bonaparte had remained King of Spain, would succession be governed by what pre-1808 laws, i.e. Semi-Salic succession, or would Napoleon have imposed full Salic Law? But for Italy there can be no real dispute, as Italy has always had Salic Law, and so should the descendants of Napoleon's heir in Italy, Eugene de Beauharnais, be considered pretenders to the Italian throne? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.27.154 (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

-Nope; because Napoleon gave up all claims to the throne of Italy with the 1814 Treaty of Paris, for both himself and his heirs (the heir according to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Italy, in the absence of a second legitimate son of Napoleon, was Eugene de Beauharnais,), more to the point, he did not claim the Italian throne during the Hundred Days and neither have the heads of the Beauharnais family nor their supporters on their behalf, or anyone for that fact, claimed the Italian throne. Same goes for the Kingdom of Westphalia, which was likewise definitely renounced, and should thus not be included, and neither should the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There would still be the claim that those renunciations were made under duress and thus could still be claimed. 74.252.105.130 (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

China and Manchukou

I restored the material on China based on this article. See also this and this. Notice that all three sources describe the subject as heir to China's throne, not to Manchukuo's. User:George6VI has a campaign to remove any mention of a Chinese pretender from a variety of articles. IMO the issues for and against listing a Chinese pretender are similar to those of the other people on this list. None of them have any official or legal status. Jin isn't actively asserting a claim, but that's also true of many of the others. Whiff of greatness (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

All the current sources said they may/could be Chinese emperor, but the claim in this article is Wikipedia:OR. - George6VI (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Karl Emich

Shouldn't Karl Emich be listed as a Russian pretender? He is considered heir by the Russian Monarchist Party. Arguably both Maria Vladimirovna and Andrew Romanov are the product of morganaic marriages thus unable to succeed, rendering Karl Emich as the next in line. 74.252.105.130 (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Typically, the sources mention only Maria and do not treat the Russian pretendership as contested. Here is The Telegraph: "Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, is the current head of the Romanov dynasty." See also Royalty Who Wait. If you go by the succession law, women are not eligible. By this standard, the Romanov dynasty died out in 1992 when Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich (Maria's father) died. Whiff of greatness (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
No, Russia's Pauline laws did not enshrine Salic law, and until the monarchy's abolition in the Russian Revolution, women were always constitutionally eligible to inherit and to mount the Imperial throne. It is a common myth that Tsar Paul I of Russia so deeply resented his mother, Catherine the Great, for usurping and keeping Russia's throne for life that he excluded women from the succession. The contrary is the case: he codified the right of Romanov women to wear Russia's crown -- upon extinction of all male Romanov dynasts. Article 30 of the original Pauline laws: When the last male issue of the Emperor’s sons is extinct, succession remains in the same branch, but in the female issue of the last reigning Emperor, as being nearest to the Throne, and therein it follows the same order, with preference to a male over a female person; but the female person from whom this right directly proceeds never loses this right. Maria Vladimirovna may or may not be Russia's rightful pretender, but arguments against her claim are not and cannot be legally based on the fact that she is a woman. What is true is that opposition to her grandfather's, father's and her own claims to the throne have persisted since 1924, when it became generally known that Nicholas II, his children and brother had all been secretly killed by the Bolsheviks in 1918. Her dynastic and vocal rivals appear to have died out, but opponents presumably survive in the Romanov Family Association, driven less by specific legal objections nowadays than by a kind of anybody-but-Maria animus among relatives and royalists. Ergo, the development of some cautiously rising support for Prince Karl Emich of Leiningen (see below). FactStraight (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Amazing that a new pretender to a defunct European throne would emerge in the 21st century! True, Karl Emich's main supporter appears to be an eccentric, traditionalist Russian plutocrat who wants to be the "power behind the throne", and seeks to promote someone for the job who, as a fount of honour, will (did?) certify him as possessing a hereditary title. But this impresario has 3 things going for him: 1. Resources: the wealth to buy property and entreé that elicit local public interest and, often, tongue-in-cheek journalistic coverage; 2. Fervor: the determination to keep taking actions that place the chosen pretender in the public eye, to complete and register for him the right bureaucratic forms to "legally" create a recognized, if tiny, monarchist political organization a là Spain's modern Carlist Party and a "realm" (or at least an unoccupied rock-in-the-sea over which the nearest nation is willing to "relinquish" official sovereignty for a price, i.e. a micro-nation), coupled with relentless advocacy for the proclaimed "monarchy" and its "monarch", done with enough earnestness and generosity to elicit "acknowledgists" if not supporters. Many a throne has been filled by a pliable princeling backed by an ambitious éminence grise who wanted to wield power -- not claim it for himself; and 3. Candidate: a willing nominee with just enough imperial Russian blood that he can't be summarily dismissed as a royal impostor claiming to be someone else, and thus is eligible to be, theoretically, the beneficiary of a carefully contrived and convoluted rationale that can justify (at least to the gullible) why he -- and no other -- is the "rightful" claimant to the ancient throne. In this case, the tale told combines selected Pauline laws requiring narrowly interpreted "royal marriage" rules, religious tests, and (occasional) visits to the realm (Russia and/or "the rock") that, when taken together, exclude all other possible "heirs" to the throne except -- Voila! -- Karl Emich. We now have a claimant who fits virtually any nominal definition of a royal pretender: "Lights, camera, action!" So I vote that Karl Emich meets, at least technically, the test for inclusion. After all, how did history's monarchs become so, if not for the muster of some combination of these three characteristics -- and the passage of time? The irony is that the puppeteer is far more notable than his Pinnochio, being less a grifter than a fascinating kind of true believer, in the classic mold of The Great Gatsby. FactStraight (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I searched for "Karl Emich" on Highbeam. They have four stories that focus on his relationship with the Aga Khan's wife -- nothing about his claim to the Russian throne. Where has it received notable coverage? Whiff of greatness (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Here, for instance. Emich Karl, too, has led an interesting life, heretofore centered on his marriages; the tragedy of the first, the scandal, lawsuits and family feud of the second -- overshadowed in the media by that wife's subsequent exotic marriage, and the belated male heir born of the third. Only recently have his own endeavors garnered coverage -- and that mostly in connection with Anton Bakov, and mostly in Russian. FactStraight (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
If nothing else, Karl Emich sounds way cooler than Maria. Whiff of greatness (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Burma

I am afraid editing this boxes is too much for me, but I was hoping someone might be able to add a second pretender to the Burmese entry. The person to be added is Soe Win (Prince) who seems to be the acknowledged "head of the family" by the existing members of the Konbaung dynasty. He is the pretender in terms of primogeniture while the other 'pretender' is there by virtue of his seniority. The two men are seen together occasionally and Soe Win is recognised as the family head. There are many articles - when I have the Soe Win article sorted out (I have just created the link for the page) would someone add him so there are two pretenders on the Burma entry on this page? Aetheling1125 (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of current pretenders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of current pretenders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"Finnish Monarchist Party"

There are two "sources" for "Finnish Monarchist Party". One is inaccessible ""Sivua ei löydy") and another with irrelevant texts in Latin. No real sources exists about the so-called "House of Kohtala" --193.40.110.5 (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Scotland, Wales, and Ireland

Regarding Scotland, shouldn't there be a pretender representing succession from John Balliol? Based on strict primogeniture he became king when Margaret Maid of Norway died (Edward I of England supported this claim), and he was the rightful king until his death and should have been followed by his son Edward. Edward Balliol died without issue thus the throne would have passed to the descendants of John Balliol's sisters.

Regarding Wales, technically there shouldn't be any claimants as Wales did not practice automatic primogeniture like England/Britain/UK developed: all adult sons without defect were potential heirs and the ruling king/prince would choose one as an Edling. While custom favored the eldest son, as one author put it this was merely a bias, not a law, thus until the deposed houses assembled to agree on an heir there is none.

Regarding Gaelic Ireland, how is there a claimant to the high throne? That throne was always filled by whoever could convince enough of the country to recognize him as high king, and the other thrones of Ireland were inherited via tanistry, requiring the family to elect an heir from among the previous king's immediate family (adult, patrilineal descendant's of his great-grandfather). Emperor001 (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit on Scotland. Edward Balliol sold his claim to Edward III, thus every rightful English monarch since him could have called himself the rightful heir to the throne of Scotland. Emperor001 (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

List of current pretenders → Heads of former ruling houses – The term "pretender" is typically used to suggest that a claim made by the subject is without reasonable basis. Looking at several of the sources for this article, I don't see anyone else using the term in the sense that this title does. The usage here does correspond to that in the article pretender, where it is sourced to a French-language work. The lazy mouse (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support or list of heads of.. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Opposeעם ישראל חי (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The term "pretender" is used more broadly - for those who do assert their claims, for those who don't but have a clear recognised claim under the previous rules of succession and also for cases where the current heirs don't seek restoration of the throne but do claim the head of the house (and sometimes the pretendership, via a claim to the family's former property), at times in dispute with cousins - e.g Italy, Russia, France etc... Also some of the pretenders are not from the ruling house that was deposed at the time but are rather the heirs to it - for example the current Jacobite pretender to the British & Irish thrones is not from the House of Stuart. Timrollpickering 08:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    • This list cites American Heritage for the definition of pretender: “One who sets forth a claim, especially a claimant to a throne.”[1] The bug tells us to follow British usage, so here is Oxford: "A person who claims or aspires to a title or position."[2] Duke Franz of Bavaria does not actively claim the English throne and is thus not a pretender by these definitions. He also not descendant of James II and therefore not a Jacobite. (The Jacobites died out in 1807.) What he is is the guy who would be king if it wasn’t for the Act of Settlement of 1701 and the prohibition against Catholics. That’s certainly a notable status, but perhaps not one that lends itself to a compact description. Franz is head of the House of Wittelsbach, so he would certainly remain on the list under the new title. The lazy mouse (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
      • See Pretender and its talkpage for the broader use of the term rather than performing your original research. The Dukes of Bavaria are very often described by reliable sources as the modern day Jacobite pretenders - they may not be descended from James II & VII himself but their claim rests on being the ones in the succession that was displaced in 1688. Timrollpickering 12:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Here is an article in The Telegraph on Franz's claim to the throne. They don't call him a pretender or a Jacobite. But they do quote a peerage specialist who says that he is the current head of the House of Stuart. I take it that is the preferred terminology. The lazy mouse (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is a difference between a pretender/claimant, one who would have inherited a throne but for an illegal abolition or usurpation, and the head of a House, the senior-most male-line of the dynasty. Due to female-line inheritance a claim may pass from House to House. For example, the Jacobite claim passed from the male-line of the Stuarts to the Houses of Savoy, Habsburg, and Wittelsbach, and even then the heir might not be the parent Head of the House. The Habsburg heirs to the Jacobite claim were from a cadet branch, not the main House of Habsburg that ruled Austria at the time a Habsburg had the claim. Emperor001 (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Do you have a published source for the claim that a pretender is, "one who would have inherited a throne but for an illegal abolition or usurpation"? Surely the more common usage is to suggest that the subject has no reasonable basis to claim whatever it is they are claiming. I have already cited two dictionaries to support this definition. The "Jacobite pretenders" were named by their enemies, who didn't want to remind the public that the rebels backed the Stuarts, the former ruling family, against Hanoverians who had no genealogical claim. The lazy mouse (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm basing that mostly on what I have read here on Wikipedia and other online sources. A pretender is a person who claims the throne on the basis that the rightful line was deposed in some manner. For example, the Jacobite claim is based on the claim that James II and VII was illegally overthrown and thus any subsequent change in the succession law was invalid for lack of royal assent. The claimants to the royal throne of France claim that the monarchy was illegally abolished by Revolution. By contrast, I would note that Elizabeth II is not listed as a pretender to Commonwealth Realms like India that became republics (at least not that I have ever seen). Presumably the reason she is not considered a pretender to those countries is because she voluntarily assented to the monarchy's abolition as opposed to a violent overthrow. I have never seen anything defining a pretender as one who has no reasonable basis for a claim (those are usually called imposters, like when people tried passing off someone as one of the Princes in the Tower). In almost every instance pretenders are the result of some overthrow of a prior regime. The closest claim I've seen to a pretender with no real claim is the Carlist claim in Spain which more resembles a situation where the succession law was changed, and the new pretender didn't like that a unfavorable succession law was passed, but at least they presented a claim that the law was not properly modified. Emperor001 (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per previous arguments on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.71.249.229 (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Korea

Why Yi Chung is enlisted as the pretender of the Korean Empire? He is only current householder of Prince regent Heungseon, but he can't be pretender of Korea. Please see this. Emperor Gojong is adopted as son of Grand Royal Dowager Queen Sinjeong and King Ikjong, who were parent of Heonjong of Joseon. And Prince regent Heungseon is a great-grandson of Prince Eunsin, who is younger brother of Jeongjo of Joseon (English source is here.) So legally Prince regent Heungseon and Gojong did not have lineal relation. Yi ChungYi Chung's father is adopted son of Yi Jaemyeon, who is older brother of Gojong(in blood relation (added 14:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC))), so he can't have lineal relation with Gojong. --Mintz0223 (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that Yi Chung doesn't descend from Gojong? [3] Nightw 13:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes and no. He is one of descendant of Gojong in the sense of blood relation. But legally Yi Chung is not a descendant of Gojong, because Gojong's ancestry is officially changed since he became the king of Joseon. because Gojong's legal father is Ikjong, not Heungseon. But Yi chung's father was adopted by Yi Jaemyeon, Heungseon's first son, so Yi chung is a member of Heungseon's family. --Mintz0223 (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
But one can still inherit the throne even if adopted into another line. Assuming that Gu (or Hoeun) didn't have any male heirs, the line then passes to another branch.
  • "According to Invest Korea: If one were to apply the male primogeniture rule, the genealogical male heir of Emperor Gojong would then be Yi Chung (born 1936)."

I don't really know much about the Joseon genealogy, so I'm at a loss, but there are sources stating that he would be the heir, and nothing directly disputing this claim has been provided. I'm hoping you can find something a bit more solid... Nightw 17:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yi Chung can't be a heir even though we consider male primogeniture rule. His father Yi wu is second son of Prince Imperial Ui. His eldest son is Kenichi Momoyama, whose Korean name is Yi Geon. Thus genealogical male heir should be Momoyama's eldest son Tadahisa. (by ko:모모야마 겐이치#자녀) And this Korean news ([4]) says that "의왕의 첫째 아들 이건 황손은 일제의 압력에 의해서지만 일본 여인과 결혼해 일본인에 동화된 삶을 살았다. 둘째 아들 이우 황손은 유일하게 일본황실의 강압을 뿌리치고 조선 여인과 결혼했다. 이우 황손은 대원군의 장손인 계동궁 이준 황손(일반 이름 준용)이 아들이 없어 계동에 양자로 가기도 했으니 고종황제 집안과 고종황제의 형 집안을 통틀어 대를 잇는 자손이 된다. 그래서 황실은 둘째 아들인 이우 황손을 적통자로 생각했다" (Momoyama Kenichi, the eldest son of Prince Ui, married with Japanese woman and assimilated in Japanese society due to government of Japan's pressure. Yi Wu, second son of Prince Ui, overcame Japan's pressure and married with Korean woman. Prince Yi Wu was adopted by Yi Junyong, grandson of Prince Regent Heungseon, so he is the householder of Gojong's descendants and those of Gojong's older brother. Thus imperial family considered Yi wu as genealogical heir.)
Thus, the only reason why we can consider Yi Chung as pretender of Korean Empire is Korean imperial household's preference. I think at least Yi Chung's reason to pretending should be fixed. He is genealogical heir if we only consider perfect-Korean lineage. Momoyama Tadahisa is genealogical heir if we consider Korean-Japanese lineage as well. --Mintz0223 (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, can you draft a wording we can replace the current with? Try and keep it simple as possible? Nightw 18:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Prince Yi Seok is the Korean pretender, according to BBC, Washington Post, and New York Times (See here and here). The local government uses him to promote tourism, so he has an official pretender gig. As for the three royals who are currently listed, there's an English-language article about them in JoongAng, but nothing internationally. In short, they are obscure figures getting WP:UNDUE attention here, little more than Wikipedia fabrications. Kauffner (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No objections to adding Seok. Perhaps you can propose an appropriate footnote like the other three have. On the others, Won is the man still reported as the heir in geneaological sources. I will have a look around for more sources on the other two. Nightw 13:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is the JoongAng story. This appears to be the only RS coverage "Empress" Yi Hae-won has gotten in English on the Internet. And that is more coverage than Yi Chung has. Dong-A has an obit for Yi Ku that mentions Yi Won.[5] He is identified as, "General Manager of Hyundai Home Shopping". There is no suggestion that he is a pretender. Kauffner (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Yi Won was chief mourner at the funeral of the last uncontested head of the Imperial Family. On what basis does Yi Seok claim he is the legitimate heir? Yi Won was selected by the Joseon Lee Royal Family Members Foundation. - dwc lr (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, see sources added above for Chung. Nightw 21:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Invest Korea says Yi Chung is, "not actively claimed the right to be the head of the Yi family". Of course, it is not necessary to "actively" do anything to be a pretender. The issue is rather how he is commonly presented. As he is presented in this article, he is not a pretender. The man just wants to live his private life and not be bothered by media and royalists. We should respect that. Yi Won and Yi Seok are the pretenders who get almost all the attention. Creating a long list of people who shouted, "Yeah, I'm Spartacus too!" just leaves the reader confused. Kauffner (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Too bad. Wikipedia is not censored, as I'm sure you know. Has he formally renounced all claims to the throne? If so, and if it is indeed true that Yi Seok is the next in line after Yi Chung (and you'll need to substantiate that), then we can switch Chung for Seok and reduce information about Chung to a footnote. Nightw 11:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not Yi Seok's PR agent. If people don't want him in, fine with me. But I hope we can at least can rid of Yi Hae-won. She was never covered in the international media and has got almost no coverage in the Korean press in the last five years. There is no logic to her claim under the succession rules. Even in the stories about her, she's the joke pretender. Kauffner (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Well going on what you've provided, he should be added as a claimant. It's whether he replaces Chung that is not so certain. As for Hae-won, [6][7][8][9][10], even if she's the "joke pretender" her claims appear to be quite prominent and she has a legitimate connection to former rulers. Nightw 07:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Almost all of that coverage is from when she "coronated," back in 2006. Yes, she really is the joke pretender. Here is Buyers: "“Enthroned” as “Empress of South Korea” (sic) at a Seoul hotel on 29th September 2006, in a copic-opera ceremony conducted by members of the so-called “Imperial Family Association of Daehanjeguk” (who are unconnected with the Yi Imperial line)." Anyway, I created a footnote for Hae-won and Seok. I think that's all the prominence they deserve. Chung would be a pretender only if he was to challenge the legitimacy of Won's adoption, so he is even more deserving of footnote status. Kauffner (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm lost. First you were arguing that Seok was the pretender, and that the others' claims (including Won's) were a "Wikipedia fabrication". I responded that adding Seok was fine. Now you want to add him as a footnote on Chung's entry, is that correct? The full quote from Invest Korea reads: "Even though Yi Chung is a direct descendent of his grandfather Uichin-wang, he has not actively claimed the right to be the head of the Yi family, leaving the dispute to exist between his two relatives -- Yi Won and Yi Hae-Won." Haewon's claim is also mentioned by The People's Daily, and she's definitely a pretender. But she can be kept as a footnote. Nightw 12:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to consider Yi Chung to be a pretender. The succession rules are quite complex, so Invest Korea is radically oversimplifying when it refers to a "male primogeniture rule." Yi Won was adopted by Yi Ku to make him successor. If wasn't for the adoption, Yi Chung would have been the heir. That is his only relevance to the pretender/succession issue. He doesn't seem to be making any claims, and no one is advocating on his behalf. Kauffner (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
As it says in his article, the legality of the adoption under family law is disputed, and it was definitely illegal under Korean law. Nightw 17:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess Yi Seok is controversial. But there is no source for the claim that Yi Chung is a pretender. Invest Korea says quite the opposite. Kauffner (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it states that he does not make the claim himself. That does not rule out claims made on his behalf. Since Won's adoption is illegal (or at least contested), it would be inappropriate to list him alone. And Chung is legally the heir under succession laws. Nightw 00:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
You are presenting a dispute between Won and Chung that doesn't exist in the real world. In law, there is the concept of "standing," under which only someone with a direct interest in the outcome may challenge a decision. Of course, this isn't an actual legal issue unless Korea restores the monarchy. But in this analogy, the people with a direct interest in the adoption issue are Yi Chung and the Yi family association, neither of whom have challenged it. If you want to play succession lawyer and ignore political reality, there are two Japanese with plausible claims as well. To justify keeping Yi Chung on the list there needs to be sources that present him as a pretender. So I don't think he belongs on this list at all. You proposed putting him in footnote above, and that's acceptable to me. Kauffner (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I said I would accept putting him as a footnote on Yi Seok's entry. I also said that Won's claim (which you originally called a "Wikipedia fabrication") cannot sit there alone. Since our collaboration doesn't seem to be working on the talk page and you persist in making changes to the article unilaterally, I respond in kind. Nightw 13:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yi Seok and Yi Won

I will add Yi Seok as the Pretender of Korea as he is listed an author in Seoul for Economist states "Had the 20th century, with its colonialism, war and division of Korea, not happened, Yi Seok may well have been King of Korea."[1] In addition, he is listed as the "current heir" by Knowledge Nuts[2], and he is the named successor[3]. This isn't debated in Korea. Theoneyihistorian (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

None of those articles say that Yi Seok is the current head of the House of Yi. In fact, the the Joongang Daily article says that the Jeonju Lee Royal Family Members Foundation recognizes Yi Won. I haven't seen an explanation of exactly who this group is. But its claim to represent the House seems to be widely accepted. Yi Won is president and performs the "five rites" as head of the House, according to this article. It's for the House to select its head and to judge the legitimacy of any adoption. If we don't recognize the foundation's authority and go by primogeniture, the head of the House is Yi Cheong. Yi Seok gets media attention because he has a dramatic life story and a hit song. That's not the same as a valid claim to be the head of the house. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
The Korean Government published on their website, Korea.net, that Yi Seok was the only recognized pretender in Korea.[4]. The Korean people widely recognize Yi Seok as the Hwangson. He was also featured on numerous television talk shows across Korea cable as the officially recognized last prince of Korea including Park Jong Jin's Kwaedonanma where he was specifically identified as the Crown Prince of Korea. This is acknowledged in Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoneyihistorian (talk • contribs) 22:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Do you read the articles that you link to? This one says "Currently Yi Seok is one of two pretenders to the throne." Nine Zulu queens (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
It said he is the only on in Korea. Here is a more recent article. More recently he was, again, called the Last Crown Prince by Daum (while being visited by the US Ambassador)[5].Theoneyihistorian (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Are there any further objections?Theoneyihistorian (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I will proceed to revert. Thank you for forcing me to add further clarification and sources as it helps everyone on Wikipedia when we have verified sourced information! Theoneyihistorian (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
The head of a house doesn't have to live anywhere in particular. No, Yi Seok was never a crown prince. Isn't that part in quotation marks? I assume it is a soi disant title. Korea.net is a tourist information site. The article is not any sort of official recognition by the Korean government. All the same, I assume the author knows what she is talking about. If she says there are two pretenders, that implies Yi Seok and Yi Won both have pretender status. IMO, we should list them both. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
That makes sense and I'm ok with that. I'll update. Theoneyihistorian (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ireland/Irish Clans

First, a little background. A user named TadhgORuairc made about 130 edits over nine months, the main purpose of which was to say that a person named Diolmhain Lobley was the current Duke of Meath, Rídhamhna of Ireland, Prince of Breifne Ua Ruairc and, since 22 May 2016, pretender to the throne of Ireland (see here). Celia Homeford then reverted the most egregious content. I found the mess three days ago and reverted back to the pre-TadhgORuairc version. I have since been reverted, twice, by 81.101.110.179. So, my arguments for the older version are:

  1. This list is for "an aspirant or claimant to a monarchy that either has been abolished or suspended, or is occupied by another." None of the cited sources say that any of the (Irish) people in the Ireland section aspire to or claim the throne of Ireland. 81's statement that reliably sourced claims made on a person's behalf are included regardless of whether that person stakes an active claim is a straw man, since there is no reliably sourced third party claim on any of those people's behalf either. Their claim is to chieftainship of their respective clans only.
  2. The idea that they aspire to or claim the thrones of Connacht, Leinster, Thomond, Desmond or Ulster is even more ludicrous. Have a look at Katharine Simms's From Kings to Warlords: those kingships died out gradually in the middle ages over the course of four centuries, as kings evolved into chieftains. The monarchies were not abolished, so it is not possible for them to have pretenders.
  3. There are other nonsense statements, e.g. the idea that the High Kingship was abolished on the death of Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair in 1198, then magically resurrected by Brian Ua Néill in 1258, only to be abolished again with his death in 1260.
  4. Franz, Duke of Bavaria is covered in the Britain (formerly Jacobite Pretenders to the English and Scottish Thrones, formerly Great Britain and Ireland, formerly United Kingdom) section. It is grossly misleading to have him in a separate Ireland section, since five-sixths of Ireland is now independent, and a claim to the English and Scottish crowns would not give him a claim to the Republic.
  5. The old and the new versions have identical refs, but the new version changed links and plain text into red links, making it practically unreadable, as well as changing some blue links into other, less appropriate ones.
  6. There is no obvious reason to move Ireland or Irish Clans to the bottom of the list.

I'm reverting again, and I would ask the IP to discuss here before reverting back. Any other opinions would be welcome. Scolaire (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Emperor001 also questioned this content in the section #Scotland, Wales, and Ireland higher up. If the citations don't say they are pretenders to the kingships, then we shouldn't either. I agree it is not a matter of whether they make an active claim themselves but whether any citations call them a claimant or pretender. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Welsh "Pretender"

I would like to make the point here for excluding Lawrence Jones from this list. I will make them in a bit of a scathing tone, for which I ask your forgiveness, but work is rough and I need my break to vent a bit. I deleted his name from this list due to the fact that his "claim to the throne" exists on a vastly different standard from other pretenders' standing when it comes to succession rights. Here is a "pretender" where "pretend" takes a far more familiar meaning than the one we commonly associate with dethroned dynasties. With this said, a few points to consider:

  • Firstly, there is no unified Welsh throne besides the Principality of Wales. I am not sure Lawrence Jones is aware of that. This principality was hereditary to some extent within Gwynedd's House of Aberffraw, which Jones does neither refer to, nor claims descent from in any of his documents. He claims descent from an entirely made-up "Royal Welsh Nation" that, for all intents and purposes, must be resident in either his own ample posterior or in his lawyer's. He claims it as a "Descendant of Royal Welsh Nation", which is absolute balderdash. Or, not to put too fine an academic point to it: What the hell is that even supposed to mean?
  • Second point: There are currently at least two relatively well-attested successor families to the House of Aberffraw and thereby the Principality of Wales, namely the Wynne and Anwyl families, which have what you would call dynastic heads and thereby theoretical claimants, or, if they were so inclined, pretenders to a Welsh throne. So far, so good. If they had made a claim to the throne of Gwynedd or Wales, they would belong in this article, but they haven't.
  • Third point: the documents Jones apparantly had scanned and uploaded prove two things alone:
    • (3a) The first is that from humble Lawrence Jones, he had his name (!) changed to the massively idiotic name (!) "Tywysog Llywelyn Jones Cymru". So he is an American dude formerly called Larry who is now called the Welsh equivalent to a French "Empereur Napoleon Dubois France" (as a name!) or a German "Kaiser Friedrich Müller Deutschland" (as a name!) or a Spanish "Rey Carlos Lopez España" (as a name!). Keep in mind, that even in countries that include titles in legal names (e.g. Germany), not even the direct heirs of emperors and kings have anything more than "Highness" in their birth certificates. While the epitheton "Cymru" of the Welsh is actually a traditional medieval usage he imitates, having his legal name changed to include the title that he lays claim to shows a kind of self-aggrandisement and hot-air-inflation that I last saw in the self-styled "McCarthy Mor", Terence Francis MacCarthy. It means zilch, but it reeks of smoke and mirrors.
    • (3b) The document apparently stamped by a Japanese attorney as "ad-hoc arbitrator" (and not by a Japanese court, as is claimed in the article!) sounds grand and all, but all it does claim is that (i.) Welsh titles weren't passed on through direct primogeniture; (ii.) that if old dynasties fail, "any Welshman of the Nation, co-equal in dignity" can make a claim; (iii.) and that Larry is the heir due to his descent through a "direct and continuous masculine line" from what this document calls "the Welsh Kings or Warlords" and from the "Cenedl, or Royal Welsh Nation". In other words, zilch. The term cenedl (Gael. cenél) just means kindred. It's as hollow as claiming descent from "family". Again, let me re-state -- and I am saying this as someone who has lived in Wales and loves the country and would even like a Welsh Prince of Wales! -- that "The Royal Welsh Nation" is a made-up term that lives in exactly the same place as Robert Crumb's Mr Snoid. All the other grand titles tacked onto this newly, shockingly, and remarkably pervasively royal posterior are worthless when it comes to dynastic standing.

In other words, our very own Larry, more recently known as "Tywsy" or "Old Cym" to his friends and relations, fons honorum of at least (and indeed at most) his own bathroom, has less reason to call himself "Prince" or lay claim to any throne (apart from, again, his own toilet seat, his sovereignty over which shall not here be disputed), than that massage parlour operator who married Zsa Zsa Gabor and at least had the common decency do buy his adoptive rights from an old princess of the House of Anhalt. Or, to summarise the claim in one word: meh. 62.12.156.221 (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

There should be no pretender for this former nation. If I recall correctly the 1791 Constitution offered the throne to the then Elector Frederick Augustus I of Saxony upon the death of Stanisław II August. After Frederick Augustus it would go to whoever his daughter married, and if the male heirs of such a union died out a new king would be elected. However, his daughter never married thus had Frederick Augustus accepted the throne upon his death a new king would have been elected. As it turns out Frederick Augustus declined the throne due to international pressure thus there is no heir under the 1791 Constitution. However, the claimants to the throne of Saxony are claimants to the throne of the Duchy of Warsaw whose constitution simply stated that the King of Saxony was also Duke of Warsaw. The table should be edited accordingly to replace the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with the Duchy of Warsaw. Emperor001 (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't cited, so I've just removed it. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Bosnia

Also i wanted to ask if we know who the current Bosnian pretender is and if we should add him? I found the royals family website [11] but i dont speak bosnian so i cant read it. According to few english things i read they have a Duke(pretender) but i couldnt get a name. I dont know if anyone can help with this. Spongie555 (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the website cites the name Stjepana Berislavića as the pretender (see House of Berislavić). To what exactly, I'm not sure, since the last time Bosnia was independent was during the 15th century... I'm not familiar with any line of Bosnian royal family apart from that. Nightw 11:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the Bosnian royal family is doing what the georgia royal family is doing by trying to revive a old royal house and make a pretender. There is also the other royal house of Bosnia ,House of Kotromanić. Spongie555 (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The male line of the House of Kotromanić went extinct a half a millennium ago, though I suppose one could argue that, since Bosnia under the House of Kotromanić was a vassal of the Kingdom of Hungary, Hungarian practices would likely be applicable, and Hungary embraced a rule of succession that certainly allowed women to inherit the throne under some circumstances. If one can construct an argument that women could inherit the Bosnian throne, then the descendants of Catherine of Bosnia, Countess of Cilli could have a claim. If cognatic, then the pretender to a Kotromanić arising from Catherine would, I believe, presently be Hubertus Christoph Joachim Friedrich von der Osten, the second son of Princess Felicitas of Prussia; if agnatic-cognatic, then, if I'm not mistaken, that pretender would be Karl von Habsburg. That's a lot of speculation, though, and there is not a source in the world that I'm aware of that makes any claim that those individuals have any such pretense.—MNTRT2009 (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Mecklenburg–Schwerin

I read on the House of Mecklenberg's website that with the extinction of the male line of Mecklenburg–Schwerin the Sterlitz line inherited a unified claim. Should the table be amended to reflect this? Emperor001 (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

England

Should an entry be made for Lady Caroline Child Villiers? Alternate succession to the English crown indicates that she has a claim based on the Will of Henry VIII. Emperor001 (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Carlos Felipe

Has Carlos Felipe any right to Mexican throne under succession laws of Maximilian's Mexican empire? --90.190.60.50 (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Carlos Felipe is not descendant of Maximiliano. --37.157.96.65 (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Albania

Wiedian Prince Wilhelm of Albania had one son and this died in 1973 without male descendants. This line is now extinct. --90.190.60.50 (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir

How is Ankit Love a pretender when his father Bhim Singh (politician) is still alive? --Kbabej (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Vatican City

I removed the following row from the "Others" section of Italy:

State Pretender Since House Claim Succession Abolition Ref(s)
Vatican City Antipope Michael 16 July 1990 Elected offices do not have houses. An American man who claims to be Pope, and therefore Sovereign of Vatican City, in opposition to Pope Francis (and previously against Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI). He considers Vatican II illegitimate, and was elected by a self-proclaimed Conclave in 1990. Elective 1965 [6May2019 1]

I'm not sure the Vatican should be considered part of Italy for the purposes of this list, but more importantly, Antipope Michael's claim to the papacy is not "governed with respect to" the "relevant succession laws" of the Vatican, as this article's introduction says entries here should be. According to his article, Michael was elected by "a group of six laypeople, which included himself and his parents," and it sounds like even his ordination to the priesthood and episcopacy were highly irregular. I think he would be closer to the false pretenders excluded from the list according to the intro. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ Brisendine, Steve (30 May 2005). "Despite few followers, 'Pope Michael' holds to beliefs". The Topeka Capital-Journal. Retrieved 24 April 2012.
@Lusanaherandraton: I modified the reference in the table above so its references appear immediately below your comment. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Abkhazia

Why is this principality not in the list anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miloradovan (talk • contribs) 08:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Because it had no citations[12]. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

High Kingship of Ireland

Why is Conor Myles John O'Brien listed as a claimant? The high kingship of Ireland was not hereditary. From what I understand it was essentially a self-declared position that any Irish king could claim if he had enough might to force a majority of the island to recognize him as such. Emperor001 (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Neither of the sources that were next to that entry say anything about the kingship, so per WP:BLP I have removed it. DrKay (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Emperor001 (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Bogus entries

Per the opening sentence of the article, "A pretender is an aspirant or claimant to a monarchy that has either been abolished or suspended, or is occupied by another."

In many of these entries, there is no evidence that the individual claims or aspires to the title. In some cases they explicitly repudiate it. To be counted as a pretender surely requires more than the simple fact of lineage: it m,ust require at least some minimal affirmative act. One who does not claim or aspire to a title is surely not a pretender to it. Guy (help!) 16:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

A less controversial article title would probably be something like Current heads of deposed royal houses. - dwc lr (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
DWC LR, that would at least reduce the tendency to WP:OR in this area, yes. Guy (help!) 09:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing

Following discussion at WP:RSN I am removing royalark.net and worldstatemen.org as sources, as they are not reliable. Guy (help!) 08:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Where are the French Pretenders?

I notice that none of the three candidates for the French Throne are listed (and were in fact removed a short while ago). What is the rationale for this? They would seem to fit all the requirements listed in the header. Wilson (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The French royals probably get more publicity than anyone else on the list with the possible exception of Maria Vladimirovna in Russia. "Louis XX" is a celebrity in France, as you can see here and here. See also Royalty Who Wait by Olga S. Opfell. Of course, the claims of both Maria and Louis XX to be heads of former ruling houses are dubious if you follow the traditional Almanach de Gotha standard. Allan Rice (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Gotha is the closest thing to a reliable source that exists for this subject. They have a listing for Henri of Bourbon-Orléans, Ct. of Paris, Head of the Royal House of France. From other listings in Gotha, I gather that their "head of the Royal House of Foo" corresponds to our pretender terminology. Allan Rice (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Allan Rice, see the renaming question above, to remove that particular bit of WP:SYN. Guy (help!) 09:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
It is pretty ironic and bizarre that France (and Brazil) have been purged from a “List of current pretenders” when they probably have the most active “pretenders”. SAO PAULO, Brazil —  Bertrand Maria José Pio Januário Miguel Gabriel Rafael Gonzaga de Orleans e Bragança e Wittelsbach has a regal name but no crown — which is what he craves. “A return to monarchic rule is the only way to rule Brazil,” said the man more simply known as Dom Bertrand or, as he may prefer, “Prince Imperial of Brazil,” heir to Brazil’s defunct throne. “Because in the republic there is often schizophrenia.”, The pretender to be French king is dead. Long live the other pretenders, all three.. Looking over the edit history they have been removed because a claim to the French throne is “laughable” if there is no throne in Brazil to “pretend” to (as in the case of 99% of entires here....) - dwc lr (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
DWC LR, all you need is a couple of reliable independent sources that explicitly describe them as pretenders (rather than descendants). Guy (help!) 09:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that's the way the issue should be decided. There should be a definition either in the article's lead or in a dictionary. We can then apply that definition to the items in the list. Allan Rice (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Allan Rice, that's not how Wikipedia works. We don't get to decide that someone is a pretender based on our interpretation of whether they meet the dictionary definition or not. Guy (help!) 16:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
There is no guideline that says we can't use dictionaries. In fact, Wikipedia has a list of recommended dictionaries. Different writers will put a different spin on the same word. The only way a list going to make any sense is if the editors impose consistent definitions that apply throughout the article. Allan Rice (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The dictionary definition is actually pretty clear from what I've found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pretender#Definition_of_pretender JoelleJay (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Allan Rice, yes there is: WP:SYN. You don't take a dictionary definition of a term and then use it to decide that people meet the term based on sources that don't use it. Guy (help!) 18:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
In that case, why would we need a section in the guidelines like this one that recommends various style books and dictionaries? I'm pretty sure that none of them recommend the style writing that you are proposing. WP:SYN doesn't mention dictionaries. Allan Rice (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The removals seem somewhat premature, given that there seems to be concensus to change the title of the article to "Heads of former ruling families" which would presumably include the French and Brazilian "pretenders". Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move: --> Heads of former ruling families

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


List of current pretenders → Heads of former ruling families – The word “pretender” suggests someone who claims to be a monarch, but now holds no power or legal position. This article is a list of people who have a genealogical basis to claim a throne. None of them holds a pretend court the way the Jacobites did. Here are some definitions:

In short, the way the word is used in this article appears to be a Wikipediaism. I suggest moving the article to "Heads of former ruling families." I have ngrammed the possibilities that occurred to me here. Allan Rice (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey

  • Strong support per WP:BLP. Many of these entries are sourcing disasters rife with WP:OR. I'm not opposed to there being a List of current pretenders split-off article - but it would need ironclad references that either the person is an "active" pretender (i.e. they claim they're the true ruler of nation XYZ) or else multiple reliable and secondary sources indicating that there is a viable political movement in favor of enthroning this particular person as monarch in the relevant country within the past few years. As a random example - Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon is largely sourced to wedding notices and his LinkedIn profile, and claims that "Bonapartists" have views in favor of him, when the truth is that no Bonapartists genuinely in favor of re-establishing the Empire of France have existed for a century. He might be barely notable enough for an article, but solely as a society figure for people who pay attention to former noble houses, not as a political entity. SnowFire (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment- I think your proposed list of "real" pretenders as you define them SnowFire would be very very short in fact empty as far as I know. There is a certain amount of support in German for restoration of the monarchy, but the heir to the Kaiser " does not advocate for restoring Germany’s monarchy, and notes that the matter “is not on the agenda at the moment.”[13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeat75 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, again per WP:BLP, and per SnowFire and the nomination. The word "pretender" has serious problems in that it implies that the individual pursues an active claim, which is not true in most cases. I am also far from convinced by that the sources being used here meet the standard of WP:RS. Kahastok talk 19:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, per the editors above.Smeat75 (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC))
  • Oppose per 2018 discussion. The term "pretender" is often used in a broader range than the nomination implies - as well as disposed monarchs & their heirs seeking restoration the term is also applied to widely recognised heirs to disposed monarchs according to the laws of succession but also to the messes of squabbling cousins regardless of whether they seek restoration or not. There is also the seemingly bizarre situation where heirs reject restoration of the throne but still assert the pretendership (and sometimes squabble the succession with cousins) largely due to the specifics of the country's society and/or relations with the current government (especially if there's property at dispute). "Heads of former ruling families" is a mess because the succession claim and the head of the house aren't always inherited together (particularly if going through the female line) - see previous. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as second choice (first choice is reducing to only those where we have multiple RS specifically calling them a pretender). I have yet to find a single entry supported by a source that calls the person a pretender. I don't mind if we shorten this list to only those described as a prettender by RS or change it to be a list of descendents to former noble titles, but right now it claims to be the former while actually being the latter. Guy (help!) 23:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The two can get rather separated. If the UK were do become a republic the pretender would be Elizabeth II not Andreas, Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.©Geni (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - this is nothing more than a trivial/cosmetic change.- dwc lr (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and per the rather clear consensus on the general matter at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Labeling modern descendants of nobility with theoretical titles: NPOV, BLP, NOR and other policy problems.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support I couldn't find any evidence at all that the term "pretender" is used for people who are not actively claiming the throne. JoelleJay (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support Per BLP, many of these people have never made any claim to a throne. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Comment on User:Timrollpickering's remarks - the introduction to the article defines "pretender" as A pretender is an aspirant or claimant to a monarchy that has either been abolished or suspended, or is occupied by another.... A pretender may assert a claim and the term is also applied to those persons on whose behalf a claim is advanced, regardless of whether that person makes the claim.... Prominent and reliably-sourced claims made on a person's behalf are included regardless of whether that person stakes an active claim "Claimant" and "claims"over and over, I don't believe anyone makes such ludicrous "claims". The word "pretender" is really used to mean "the person who would be monarch if there still were one." Who "claims" the non existent throne of the non existent Empire of Brazil for anyone, for instance? Are there really people who are so deluded as to "claim" that anybody is really, or ought to be, or aspires to be King of the Two Sicilies, abolished since 1860? This is all just deranged fantasy. If that definition is kept, people should only be put on the list of "current pretenders" if there is a reliable source showing that the person, or anybody else, is actually making a serious, current claim on a non existent royal position.Smeat75 (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Smeat75, and indeed there are people listed who explicitly repudiate any such claim; the claim is made on their behalf by people who live in an alternative universe where abolished monarchies are merely in abeyance waiting for the True King to return. They have as much chance of being restored to the throne as Carrot Ironfoundersson does of being restored to the throne of Ankh-Morpork, even though he is the rightful king. And for pretty much the same reasons: the local equivalents of both Vetinari and Vimes. Guy (help!) 23:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

When monarchies are abolished, the monarchical succession generally gets abolished at the same time. And where monarchies have not been abolished, it probably shouldn't be a surprise that the laws of succession tend to back the incumbant.

So, just as a general point, when we talk about "widely recognised heirs to disposed monarchs according to the laws of succession", it's worth remembering that this will generally require an inference based on what the laws might have been had they not been changed. Not necessarily our inference, but an inference. Kahastok talk 21:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

What on earth makes you think that? The law of succession to England/Scotland/Ireland wasn't abandoned between when the Commonwealth was declared in 1649 and the monarchy was restored in 1660, neither was

the French Royal succession abandoned between the abolition of the monarchy in 1792 and the restoration of the Kingdom in 1814/1815. Nor was it in Spain (1874 and 1947/1968/1975) when the monarchy was restored there, twice. The Greek succession wasn't affected by the monarchy being first abolished (1922) then restored (1935). No change between the traditional Ugandan monarchies (Buganda, etc.)being abolished and their being restored.

As for the succession regarding the headship of deposed royal houses, it's the exception rather than the rule that a new rule of succession has been adopted whilst in exile. In fact the only examples I can think of is Romania and Italy (and in both cases the succession is disputed), and that's only because the head of the house in both cases had a lack of male descendents. Every other deposed royal house has stayed true to the law of succession that was in place at the time the monarchy was abolished.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
In response to JWULTRABLIZZARD: Wait, what? Succession lines being reliable/ironclad clearly isn't true, at least as far as political reality is concerned. If Wikipedia had existed in 1970 and someone compiled a "List of nobles who would rule next if the Kingdom is re-established", then Juan Carlos I of Spain would not have been on it, his claim was considered "bad" by the various competing succession rules. Nevertheless, he was the one who actually became the next Spanish King after the monarchy really was restored. And that was after a comparatively brief gap in continuity. Many of the entries on the current list are from ruling houses that have been deposed for more than a century. Even if a monarchy came back, it doesn't seem set at all that we could trust the rules of succession to be accurate, since they clearly weren't accurate for one of the rare modern cases that this happened. SnowFire (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Juan Carlos became head of the royal house in 1941 when his father withdrew his claim. In the 1950s, Spaniards wondered whether Franco would pick a Carlist or a legitimist. Franco turned against the Carlists in 1960 and movement fell apart soon afterward. He would occasionally muse about appointing a Habsburg as king, although it's hard to see how that would work. Allan Rice (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
That was his father Juan, Count of Barcelona. Had the succession gone the way the law of succession extant in 1931 said, Juan would have become King. However, he had liberal tendencies and Franco distrusted him, thus Franco handpicked and groomed his heir to succeed him, naming him as heir apparent in 1968 with the title 'Prince of Spain'. The Count of Barcelona formally renounced his rights to his son the King in 1979.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I assume then, that you will now be able to cite the current and legally-enforcecable law of modern Austria or modern France or modern Italy or modern Turkey that provides for the succession of the monarchy of those countries.
To avoid any doubt, that means, a modern law that is recognised by the current government of the country in question as of 1 June 2020. It does not include the last succession laws before the monarchy was abolished where those laws are not in active force today - they were abolished. It does not include traditions of the former royal family where those traditions are not backed by actual laws in active force today. Because those are not current succession laws. Kahastok talk 17:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't negate House Laws. Which are particularly applicable as regards Germany (and indeed have been upheld in several courts over the years)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Geni, actually if the UK became a republic there would be no pretender because there would be no throne.

The biggest problem with this article right now is that it takes a dictionary definition of pretender, extends it to its broadest interpretation, and then labels people as pretenders when reliable sources merely name them as current heads of formerly noble households. Virtually none of these is supported by a source that calls the person a pretender tot he throne, and most of the thrones do not exist any more. Guy (help!) 08:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

'If the UK became a republic, there would be no pretender, because there would be no throne'-??? Really? There was certainly a pretender to the throne (of England then) between 1649 and 1660, why would a modern hypothetical abolition of the monarchy be any different?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately we can look to history to see if it works like that and it does not. The thrones both the old and young pretender were pretenders to ceased to exist in 1707 with the act of union. And yet they continued to be pretenders even though the younger didn't become the formal claimant until 1766.©Geni (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Geni, and we have sources that describe them as pretenders and that was a live controversy at the time. Most of the entries in this list have no RS that identifies them as a pretender: it relies on Wikipedia editors taking a RS that calls them the head of a deposed royal house, applying an interpretation of what pretender means, and thus deciding they are a pretender - even when we have RS that say they explicitly do not pursue any such claim. That seems like WP:OR to me. Guy (help!) 09:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes we have many sources that identify them as pretenders but by the standards you are using they were not after 1707. Thus the OR problem on your part.©Geni (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The world has changed in the last three hundred years. The old and young pretenders had serious backing, lots of people literally fighting for a Stuart restoration and even led to military invasion and armed conflict. Who now seriously works for or campaigns for a Bonapartist restoration of the Kingdom of Westphalia? or any of the other "pretender" positions on the list? It is just fantasy, a kind of amusing diversion for people to indulge in. No one should be labelled a "current pretender" here without a reliable source that states that there is a serious, current claim for that person to be put on a throne.Smeat75 (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Smeat75, and one of the sources we've been using for some of these fantasy titles appears to be one man continuing that fight. Except that I think it's now deprecated. Guy (help!) 08:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Westphalia and the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy were different though, because the claims for them were explicitly renounced by the 1814 Treaty of Fontainebleau. Note that Napoleon I didn't style himself as King of Italy during the Hundred Days. The reason the Bonapartes still claimed the French throne (and not the other two) after 1815 was because Napoleon I formally abdicated in favour of his son in 1815 on his defeat by the Allies, and after governing in his name for a few days, the Senate just invited the Bourbons back. Nothing was renounced in 1815, which is why his heirs continued to press their claims to the throne of France after (and were ultimately successful in the person of Napoleon III in 1815).

I totally agree as regards the various French pretenders and Brazil: their omission is...odd.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What reason can there be for this list to label a living person "pretender" to the "state" of Westphalia, as it does? And there are many more such utterly ridiculous entries. It seems like madness to me.Smeat75 (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


Certainly abolished monarchies that have definitely been renounced by the heirs to their thrones should not be listed: which is why we don't include the Kingdom of Iceland, the various commonwealth realms that have abolished their monarchies, nor do we list the Italian claim to the Kingdom of Albania (renounced by Victor Emmanuel III in 1943).

There is an existing international convention however, that deposed monarchs (as in, where the monarchy has been abolished), and their heirs who have not renounced claims as the above monarchs have, continue to be a fount of honour. That is why the orders of chivalry of various of these former states continue to be awarded as dynastic orders:

Some modern day examples:

And many, many, more.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

JWULTRABLIZZARD, that is different from the question of whether they are pretenders to the now non-existent titles. Hence the rename discussion. Guy (help!) 16:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

In actual fact, I would be in favour of changing the name of the list to the proposed one: as has been noted, someone who is head of a royal house isn't necessarily a royal pretender.

A slight addendum, make of it what you will, but there seems to be three categories of heads of royal houses:

  • Deposed monarchs, who by international convention, use the title they used whilst reigning as a sort of courtesy title. Present day holders being:



  • True 'pretenders'-i.e. heirs of deposed monarchs who continue to style themselves with the royal title despite not being entitled to. Currently there are none (correct me if I'm wrong), but past examples of this include the Jacobite pretenders, and the Carlist pretenders in Spain. Although actually Yuha IV (head of the royal house of Rwanda) could be considered a present-day example of this.


  • Heirs apparent of deposed monarchs who use their title as heir via international convention in the same way as their predecessors have used their royal titles. Current examples of this are:



Lastly, it should be noted all the others, that are in the majority, that are 'simply' the heads of deposed royal houses that, as they are so removed in time from the deposition of their house, they have not been a monarch or an heir apparent. As such, they will use instead a title from the origins of their royal house that may or may not have some special meaning, either from a national or familial standpoint. So, looking at the former ruling titles as opposed to the titles they actually use now:


•German Emperor & King of Prussia > Prince of Prussia

•Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, etc. > Archduke of Austria

•King of France > Count of Paris, Duke of France

•King of Portugal > Duke of Bragança

•King of Bavaria > Duke of Bavaria

•King of Saxony > Margrave of Meissen

•King of Württemberg > Duke of Württemberg

•Emperor of all the Russias > Grand Duke of Russia

•Emperor of Brazil > Grand Duke of Grão Para

•King of Hanover/Duke of Brunswick > Prince of Hanover

•King of Montenegro > Prince of Montenegro

•King of Romania > Custodian of the Crown

•Emperor of the French > Prince Napoleon

(There are historical examples:

King of Spain, etc. > Count of Barcelona

King of Sweden, etc. > Prince of Vasa

-as well)


So looking at all this as a whole, the only ones out of all these categories that could possibly be listed as 'pretenders' in the sense of 'pretending to a royal throne' are the deposed, formerly reigning monarchs and people such as the Carlist pretenders who actually styled themselves using the a royal style, regnal number, full royal title and everything.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Poland?

Poland was an elective monarchy, plus it should be the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Tinynanorobots (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Poland ceased to be an elective monarchy with the adoption of the Constitution of 3 May 1791, which (1) designated Frederick Augustus I of Saxony to be the heir to the then-regnant Stanisław August Poniatowski (Stanisław, while having had a number of illegitimate children, never married nor had any intent of marrying, and thus was never going to produce a legitimate heir); (2) provided that the Polish throne would be hereditary in the line of Frederick Augustus I's sons, if he were to have any; and (3) provided that the Polish throne would be inherited by and to the line of Princess Maria Augusta of Saxony if Frederick Augustus I did not have any sons. Of course, the problem with this is that Frederick Augustus I of Saxony indeed never did sire any heirs male (indeed, Maria Augusta was the only one of Frederick Augustus I's legitimate children who was born alive—all three of Amalie of Zweibrücken-Birkenfeld's other pregnancies ended in stillbirths), and the European powers, not at all keen on enabling the possibility of the resurrection of an independent Poland, did everything they could to thwart every attempt to secure a marriage for Maria Augusta, who ended up dying a spinster in 1863. Consequently, there are no descendants of legitimate children of Frederick Augustus I. The Constitution of 1791 did not make any provision allowing for the inheritance of the Polish throne by collateral relations of Frederick Augustus I (in fact, if expressly provided that if the direct line of Frederick Augustus I was to become extinct, it would fall upon the Sejm to elect a new monarch. Thus, the current House of Wettin has no claim whatsoever to the Polish throne arising under the Constitution of 1791. That said, they may have a claim of pretense to the Duchy of Warsaw.—MNTRT2009 (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I believe they do have a claim to the Duchy of Warsaw. I believe I read a translation of the Duchy's constitution which essentially said that the ducal throne went to Friedrich Augustus I and then followed the succession laws of Saxony, essentially whoever was King of Saxony was Duke of Warsaw. Emperor001 (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe the entry for Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth should be removed for the reasons outlined above. Listing the Duchy of Warsaw is permissible. Emperor001 (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Tricky new article name

The head of the former ruling dynasty of Greece is Christoph, Prince of Schleswig-Holstein. The head of a branch of that dynasty and of the former royal family is Constantine. Just one example of many. Did the move create more confusion than it solved? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think so because the head of the Royal House of Greece is King Constantine II, so the entry is going to look identical to how it was before the page move. The article is same it’s just some people object to using the term “pretender” so it was moved, a cosmetic move if you like. - dwc lr (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.economist.com/banyan/2012/05/08/20th-century-boy
  2. ^ https://knowledgenuts.com/2015/07/23/yi-seok-living-heir-to-a-forgotten-kingdom/
  3. ^ http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2831239
  4. ^ http://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/Society/view?articleId=73211
  5. ^ https://news.v.daum.net/v/20180808000216161?f=m
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_heads_of_former_ruling_families/Archive_2&oldid=1198554314"