Talk:Pretender

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive: Talk:Pretender/Archive1

Contents 1 Pretenders in the British Isles 2 Dom Rosario Poidimani, again 3 Deposed monarchs 4 False pretenders 5 List of Royal Houses 6 King Fernidad Frederick (Prussia) 7 Change to meaning of pretender 8 What on earth? 9 Semi again

[edit] Pretenders in the British Isles

Identifying “valid” or “true” pretenders to the thrones of the historic jurisdictions in the British Isles presents certain problems that make it impossible to accurately list individual pretenders in the tabular section of the article – simply because there are too many people with a valid, or potentially valid claim of pretender status.

In a nutshell, the nature of national consolidation in the British Isles – at its zenith, 1801 – 1922, when all but the Faeroes were part of one nation-state (discounting the forced temporary unification under Cromwell); the incredible number of royal clans and families (especially in Ireland); the historic number of realms; the historic nature of Gaelic, Picto-Gaelic, Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Norman, and other traditions of kingship; and the well documented (orally or literally) histories of the foregoing – all of these factors together make it impossible to identify any one pretender.

Basically, whether a pretender is a valid pretender depends upon the specific historic jurisdiction and whether its conquest and/or consolidation to other jurisdictions over time is or was accepted as valid.

For example, there is a Jacobite pretender to the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland. But historically, most Irish people have regarded the Anglo-Norman takeover of Ireland as legally invalid. There are living representatives of all the royal Irish houses who were constantly warring over rights to the High Kingship of Ireland at the time of the arguably illegal English take-over in 1171. O’Conor Don is the one most commonly touted pretender to the Irish throne, and was effectively recognised as such in the Treaty of Windsor. But the validity of the treaty, of course, is called into question by the descendants of other royal houses, especially the very numerous branches of the huge and once hugely powerful Ui Niall Dynasty – among many others.

Then there is the question whether Malcolm III Canmore’s accession to the Scottish High Kingship was lawful – ultimately as the culmination of the battles between the two sides of the same Picto-Scottish royal family, the House of Atholl and the House of Moray (whose conflict would take English form in the Wars of the Roses a few centuries later – again, with different sides of the same royal family pitted against each other). Certainly Malcolm III’s succession was not according to established Picto-Gaelic tradition; but that doesn’t matter much when you’ve got the muscle to take what you want, and Canmore was supported by England.

With the murder of High King Lulach, his grandson – founder of the Clan Mackay – became a pretender to the high throne, and his modern descendants (owing to the nature of kingly selection at the time of the dispute) may be considered valid pretenders today. To be sure, they cannot be considered ‘’in’’valid pretenders without making a value judgment on the historic validity of the constitution of medieval Picto-Gaelic tribal nation.

To wit, when in time does status as a pretender end? After a year? Ten years? A hundred years? A thousand?

So, if one contest the validity of the Stewart/Stuart accession through Princess Marjory and the Steward Walter, as some continue to do, the validity of any Jacobite heir as pretender to the Scottish throne is called into question.

If there is no valid Jacobite pretender to the throne of Scotland, then there can be no valid Jacobite pretender to the thrones of England or Ireland, nor to the Dukedom of Normandy (Jersey and Guernsey being all that’s left of it), nor the feifdom of Man, etc.

But insomuch as Ireland main is a republic and UK and its predecessor realms in interest has had a purely statutory monarchy for several centuries, I am inclined to recognise the validity of pretender status for all people who have linear claims of descent to the last monarch through whom pretender status is claim, with broad application of the general tradition in effect at the time.

With that in mind – and given the impossibility to identify any one pretender to any one of the historic thrones in the British Isles – I have revised the pertinent table entry to direct readers to the pertinent substantive section of the article. I suggest that any known pretenders who might be specifically identified be so identified there instead of in the table above, to avoid inaccuracy and confusion.

209.247.23.141 16:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dom Rosario Poidimani, again

Please stop the revert battle (this is addressed to both sides). It's really not that important either way. Just as one side is pushing it's candidate as a "real" pretender, so the other side is trying to bury this man as a "fake" pretender. If he is important enough to list in this article in either way, then why was he not important enough to have his own article? His article (admittedly entirely POV) was deleted January 24, 2006, and again February 26, 2006. I would be willing to try to start an NPOV article on him if I could get some agreement from other parties not to move for deletion (I think that I did a rather good job of removing the POV from the Hilda Toledano article - with the exception of the article name which I will tackle some day when things are calmer). Noel S McFerran 12:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

ok Mr McFerran, in this page there is a continue libel against this pretender. I hope you can create an impartial and neutral article about Rosario as in the your very good work of the Maria Pia, Duarte Nuno and Duarte Pio articles. I think is correct and legitimate insert in Maria Pia page her real name, Maria Pia de Bragança e Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha ( http://www.thepeerage.com/p9164.htm#i91639 ) because Hilda Toledano was only a pseudonym and in that wikipedia page we tell about her claims as portugese pretender. I think is very important also this documentation in portuguese language ( http://duarteotretas.blogspot.com/ ). I hope this can be useful for you. Best regards User:82.52.180.225 18:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC).

Three days ago I requested a halt to the revert battle - to no avail. Now I see that two administrators are participating in this revert battle, one on each side. This is ridiculous. This page (like lots of Wiki-pages) needs all kinds of attention paid to it to improve it. The changes back and forth are just a waster of editor-time. Noel S McFerran 17:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There is in this page continuous libel against the portuguese pretender Rosario Poidimani (http://amt.no.sapo.pt/novaversao/pretendentes/ipretendentes.htm ). The miguelist supporters continue with this libel that Rosario is a false pretender. For many royalists in Portugal, Rosario is the unique legitimate Duke of Braganza. He became Duke of Braganza when Maria Pia of Braganza, the daughter of the king Charles of Portugal, abdicated in favour of him. Maria Pia was daughter of the king and the name of the king is reported in her all official documents and there was also a document in her baptisimal documents, Documento Unido, http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/media/docs/dichiarazioni/ricon-paternita.jpg , where the king attributed, to his beloved daughter, all the honours, privileges, and rights of the Infants of Portugal. The Sacra Rota Romana decided with a definitive sentence to not delete these Maria Pia baptisimal documents where the king is reported as her father. So Maria Pia is a legitimate portuguese pretender and also her heir dom Rosario Poidimani.

The unique false pretender for other royalists in Portugal ( the supporters of Rosario and also for the supporters of the Duke of Lulè) is Duarte Pio of Braganza. He is a direct descendant of the usurper Miguel forever excluded from succession. Miguel lost all his civil and dynastic rights after the Banishment Law for will of the King of Portugal and Cortes. He become a common plebeian after this Banishment. So also his descendants are all no portuguese born and so also for this they are excluded from the succession. So, in particular, I don’t understand how is possible define Duarte Pio as duke of Braganza and so I repropose these questions: How is possible now the miguelist rapresentatives declare them as legitimate Duke of Braganza as successor of the usurper king Miguel forever excluded from the succession by the last monarchic Constitution and after the Banishment Law lost all his civil and dynastic rights and so become a common plebeian for the incontrovertible will of the Cortes and the King of Portugal? Who grant them this title? The Banishment Law was in force untill the 1950 (so these miguelist remained always plebeian and foreign, and no portuguese constitutional king granted them any title), when their "friend" Salazar decided to eliminate this banishment and supported this branch...a dictator that support a claimant to the throne...a portuguese republic interested in portuguese monarchy,as now...a true funny story...but the unique way for "legitimate" this Usurper branch is only the help of the republican political power because they have no lawful and republican rights! At the contrary Maria Pia supported the portuguese anti salazarist party of the general Humberto Delgado. She was considered from all as pretender so I don’t understand why in this encyclopedia continue to libel her heir that have also support of many portuguese royalists. This is possible to see in all monarchic portuguese forum!!! So stop to continue to libel against this pretender Rosario only in order to hide his claim and his constitutional branch! Instead McFerran is well thata also the admistrator know this situation to continue libel and attack against Rosario as in fascist period where the liberty of expression don't exist. Fortunately there are administrator that understand this sad situation and help for a democratic knowledge of the truth.

With his latest revert today Charles says "This *must* stop. Someone please protect this page again." If people want the revert battle to stop, then EITHER SIDE can do so. I'm not surprised by the behaviour of one side, but I am surprised that it has been matched by the other side. Why do some people feel that it is so absolutely necessary to include on the list of "Impostor pretenders" somebody who doesn't even have a Wiki-article? This is by no means a comprehensive list of impostor pretenders, so why not leave it off (at least for now)? I think that I know the answer: this has turned into a personal battle between editors; that's just not productive. Recently when another editor made (in my opinion) an absolute hash of an article which I had worked very hard on, I walked away when I discovered that the individual couldn't engage in scholarly discussion about the issue. At some point, I'll go back and tidy up the mess. Noel S McFerran 22:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as Poidimani isn't listed in the main list, I see little reason to have him listed at all. He's a joke, and any listing of him gives him credibility. john k 02:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The only joke here is hide all the usurpations of Duarte Pio in order to legitimate his claims. Insert here D.Rosario as fake pretender is only a big libel. I think to advise D.Rosario in order to begin a criminal action against the responsible of this continue libel against him. Is a big sadness to see the attempt of some users against this pretender and his supporters in order to legitimate the other pretender.I am a portuguese royalist that don't recognize Duarte Pio as Duke of Braganza because he is firstly not born portuguese but in particular because he is a descedant of the usurper king Miguel, forever excluded from succession and became plebeian, as all his descendants, after the Banishment Law. Who king granted to Duarte parents the title of Duke of Braganza? NO King. So why he defines him duke of Braganza if he is not? This is a usurpartion of title and I don't understand because is defended in wikipedia 82.48.224.24 11:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the legitimacy of the pretensions of Duarte Pio, the pretensions of Mr. Poidimani are obviously ridiculous. On the one hand, Duarte Pio is supposedly excluded because the old monarchical constitution of Portugal excludes his family. But the old monarchical constitution of Portugal equally excludes any illegitimate children of King Carlos from ever having any claim to the throne, even if we accept Maria Pia's claim to being the daughter of King Carlos. It would even more so exclude "Dom Rosario", who is not related to the Portuguese royal family at all, and is not Portuguese. On the one hand, you say that King Manuel's reconciliation with the Miguelist branch and recognition of Duarte Nuño as his heir is illegitimate. On the other hand, Maria Pia's "adoption" of Dom Rosario makes him the heir? This is completely intellectually incoherent. If we accept both the proscription of the Miguelists and the requirement of a Portuguese monarch seriously, as well as the standard idea that all dynasts must be legitimate, then we find that the Duke of Loula, as the senior Portuguese descendant of John VI (outside of the Miguelist line) is the heir. Certainly Dom Rosario, having no blood relationship whatsoever to the Braganzas, has no claim. P.S. Go away, and quit making legal threats. john k 11:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The pretension of Rosario are ridiculous only if a person as you don't know the true history of the Royal House of Portugal. As you affirm is true the miguelist branch are perpetually excluded from succession by the last monarchic constitution. At the contrary Maria Pia also as illegitimate daughter of the king was legitimized with a document of the king Charles that affirmed about Maria Pia "she may be called by my name and enjoy from now on the use of this name with the honours, prerogatives, rank, obligations and advantages of the princes of the House of Bragança of Portugal". The Sacred Roman Rota, the normal appeal court for the Roman Catholic Church, issued no modification in Maria Pia baptisimal documents so this document of the king is valid and have legal value. Others are only talk but the true history is based only on official documents as this. At the contrary no king granted to the miguelist branch the title of Duke of Braganza and after the Banisment Law these miguelist became plebeians. How is possible now Duarte Pio affirm him as Duke of Braganza if his father and grandfathere were plebeians? Duarte also born out of portuguese territory (in Swiss territory) and not in portuguese embassy as the Conservatória dos Registos Centrais ( [1] ) confirmed and also for this Duarte is in the same situation of the italian Rosario. After there are no proof of the pacts of Dover and Paris with the sign of the king Manuel, in really these are only dream documents in the mind of some miguelists. Yes, the Maria Pia adoption of Dom Rosario can make him heir, as the ancient Latin law issued " qui filius non est , pro filio habetur " and you can see confirmed this principle also in the book " Previlégios da nobreza Portuguesa" ( Privileges of the Portuguese nobility). Rosario is certainly the rightfull Duke of Braganza and the pretender of the Saxe Coburg Braganza branch, the unique legitimate branch of the Royal House of Portugal. Insert here Rosario as a fake pretender is only a big and true libel!!! Justiceiro 11:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Illegitimate children don't inherit. And there's no actual evidence of any of these legitimizing documents by King Carlos that you claim. Under the monarchical constitution, whose terms are the only basis for excluding the Miguelist branch, there is no provision which would allow the king to unilaterally and secretly put his illegitimate child in line for the throne. Even if there was, there would certainly be no provision for the head of house to just unilaterally appoint someone not even related to him. And, again, if Maria Pia could choose Dom Rosario, who is not related in the slightest to the House of Braganza, as her heir, then why on earth couldn't Manuel II choose the Duke of Braganza as his heir? Your arguments are nonsense, and ridiculous. Rosario. The only person who can claim the throne as the "constitutionalist pretender" is the Duke of Loula. Go away. john k 13:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The only person who can claim the throne as the "constitutionalist pretender" can be the Duke of Loulè if Maria Pia of Braganza did not exist and if the Sacred Roman Rota did not issued the validity of the baptisimal Maria Pia document with also the legitimation of Maria Pia pretension. After the 1932 with th edeath of the king Manuel according to the principle of the "immediate succession" immediatly the half-sister Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza became Duchess of Braganza and heir of the Saxe Coburg Braganza branch. The king Manuel II never choose Duarte Nuno as heir. The King never signed a document where he choose the miguelist pretender as Duke of Braganza and none see this hypotetical document because it don't exist. Go away you if you don't debate here. See this page [ http://monarquia.actifforum.com/ftopic38.DUARTE-BRAGANCA-O-GRANDE-TRETAS.htm ] against the fake Duke of Braganza Duarte Pio and please reply how is possible affirm as legitimate Duke of Braganza this person. Duarte Pio of Braganza is the true fake Duke of Braganza Justiceiro 22:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Under the constitution, illegitimate children had no succession rights, and the king could not unilaterally declare an illegitimate child to be legitimate for succession purposes. So even ignoring the fact that there is absolutely no real evidence that Maria Pia was Carlos's daughter, and certainly none that Carlos legitimized her, it doesn't even matter. Because even if everything she claims is true, she still wouldn't be the heir, because her parents weren't married, and her father was married to another woman. She wasn't in line for the throne under the Portuguese constitution, and the king isn't allowed to just unilaterally put his bastard children into the line of succession. The Duke of Loula is the heir under the 19th century constitution, but does not assert his claims. The Duke of Braganza is the heir under the traditional constitution, and the heir accepted by actual Portuguese monarchists. Maria Pia was an impostor with an absurd claim, and Rosario is an impostor with a doubly absurd claim. It's ridiculous that supporters of a supposed "constitutionalist" candidate can only defend her candidacy on the grounds of the King unilaterally, arbitrarily, and secretly changing the succession law. john k 22:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

When did this article change from Pretender to Legitimate Pretenders? When did Wikipedia become the arbiter of the validity of claims to non-existent (or extant) crowns? From the point of view of current regimes and the vast majority of their citizens, all pretenders are illegitimate, contemptuous of law, and absurd to the extent that they seek to assert a "right" to rule others based on obsolete mandates. I don't find the Poidimani assertions any less valid, any more obscure, any more fantastical, or any more revisionist history than the claim that the Duke of Braganza is Portugal's "rightful" pretender based on "the traditional constitution". And the latter's claim is no more legal in Portugal than the former's. Pretendership exists in a parallel universe. To the extent it is encyclopedic at all, it can be so only insofar as it does not attempt to confound its deprecated hypotheses with the reality that Wikipedia seeks to engage and to reflect. There is little that is more unseemly, bewildering and base than the public mudslinging rival royal claimants engage in to denounce the pretensions of a kinsman. Seeing Wiki editors replicate those quarrels here is disheartening -- and weird. Maria Pia and Poidimani, or their backers, apparently "pretend" to the throne of Portugal, and have elaborated a rationale under which that makes sense to them. Let Maria Pia and Poidimani supporters embarrass their own cause through their assertions, so long as they do not misrepresent their opinions as facts or exclude appropriate, verifiable, relevant facts inserted by others. If their assertions depend upon impostorship -- rather than on a minority interpretation of possible facts -- let's choose a way to handle that subset of pretenders who were impostors, include that definition in the article and, again, let readers decide for themselves which pretenders' claims are those of impostors and which are "valid" -- instead of Wiki doing so. Lethiere 18:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is ridiculous for wikipedia to judge between the quality of claims of real pretenderships. We shouldn't judge between the two Two Sicilies candidates, or between the Orleanist, Legitimist, and Bonapartist pretenders in France, or between the two Brazilian candidates, or between the Prince of Naples and the Duke of Braganza. But there is a difference between a pretender who is the genealogical representative (or one plausible claimant to be the genealogical representative) of an ancient dynasty that used to rule a country, and impostors. It's worth noting, though, that the Duke of Braganza's claim is, in fact, more legal in Portugal than Poidimani's - the Portuguese Republic has, as I understand it, officially recognized Duarte Pio as the official representative of Portugal's former royal family, or something similar. Pretendership isn't entirely a fantasy world. There are real things that go alongside it. Archduke Otto is still considered the Grand Master of the Austrian Order of the Golden Fleece, for instance. Some pretenders, like the aforementioned Duarte Pio, or the various French pretenders, get some kind of official recognition as pretenders by the current republican governments. Others have until recently been forbidden by law to enter the country over which their family once ruled. Pretendership may sometimes exist in a parallel universe, but sometimes it exists in the real world. For instance, the Duke of Bavaria's claims to the English, Scottish, and Irish thrones only exist in a parallel universe - they are nothing but a genealogical fact, and have no bearing on the man's life. But his claim to the equally non-existent Bavarian throne is a reality in a way that the other claim is not - he holds numerous honorary positions in Bavaria as a result of it. I think he still lives in one of the former royal palaces. His surname is "Herzog von Bayern." Obviously he is not the King of Bavaria, and calling him the "rightful King of Bavaria" is stupid (and I admit that it was stupid of me to call the Duke of Braganza the rightful king under the "traditional constitution" of Portugal), but pretendership is nonetheless a real thing, and the real kind of pretendership ought to be distinguished from the phony kind represented by someone like Poidimani. It strikes me, beyond this, that only the kind of pretendership that actually involves making some sort of claims in the real world, or acting as Head of House, should be listed in this article. We shouldn't take sides in genuine disputes, but ought to be clear to distinguish impostures. Beyond that, in cases where there is a dispute, we should be careful to give due weight to the positions based on the strength of the POV. For instance, I believe that the late Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia's eldest son disputes his exclusion, and has claimed the pretendership. This should probably be mentioned somewhere (and, in fact, is not), but shouldn't be given equal weight with the general consensus that his nephew is the current pretender. Similarly, the claims of the Lambrinos in Romania should be mentioned, but not given equal weight with the claims of the former King. And so forth. john k 20:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen an encyclopedia where a pretender is declared false or impostor without insert the impartial and legal source. Also for this is correct and neutral delete in the pretender wikipage the affirmation against Rosario Poidimani, the heir of Maria Pia, as false pretender. Infact the last news in this dispute is the Portuguese Government has officially decides [ see http://www.parlamento.pt/plc/requerimento.aspx?req_id=36925 ] to not "legitimize" any pretenders because the Portugal is a Republic and so it can't enter in this matter. This decision is obtained after the request of the president of the People's Monarchist Party (Partido Popular Monárquico) against the abuse of power of the portuguese ambassador in Italy (and friend of Duarte Pio) that the last year declared Duarte Pio is the legitimate pretender in Portugal. At the end there are not impartial and official sources that judge Maria Pia and Rosario as false pretender, so if some users insert this affirmation this is only a NPOV or is their personal points of view (at the contrary please insert here the impartial and official source of this). Many royalist in Portugal affirm the only fake and false Duke of Braganza and pretender in Portugal is Duarte Pio of Braganza. At the end I think is also appropriate insert in the wiki page of this pretender the name Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza and not Hilda Toledano. Hilda Toledano is only a pseudonym as writer but here we discuss of her claims and in all her official documents is reported only the name Maria Pia de Saxe Coburg Braganza. This is other NPOV attempt to denigrate this pretender in order to favour Duarte Pio.Justiceiro 10:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Apropo, I do not think there is sufficient proper grounds to regard Duarte Pio as heir "according to traditional constitution". What is traditional constitution, before 19th century? It was based on cognatic succession, similar to that in use in the UK. Nothing save miracle can make "the heir-male" of a really cadet branch as heir in a system that allows cognatic succession. And traditional constitution did not allow Manoel II to adopt an heir (nor would it have allowed Hilda to adopt a heir, or Carlos to make Hilda eligible for succession). This, of course, is going again to merits of their claims, something that is not the job of WP. But needs to be mentioned, because some are basing Duarte's position on similar arguments of merits. I believe that when Manoel II died, there existed his cognatic cousins who were not rulers of any existing monarchy at that time any longer, and could well have been regarded as heirs general to Portuguese monarchy (had Manoel not been deposed, Portugal would have arranged for his succession, presumably using its conventional cognatic line, when it became foreseeable that a successor will be needed as he was not siring children). It should be recognized here that Duarte Pio is pretender on basis of wide acceptance in monarchist circles, and as a cadet descendant of old dynasty, but not as its clear heir - he is clear heir of only a usurper king who was deposed. And, the title of Braganza duke comes from a different justification: as far as I have understood points available even here, it comes from the dukedom granted to the future Pedro I of Brazil (ironically: remember that Duarte Pio descends from the rival of Miguel too). Marrtel 06:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree with this analysis of the two dynastic claims (although, to be fair, it should be noted that john k retracted his reference to "the traditional constitution of Portugal"). The problem with excluding Hilda Toledano on the grounds that her claim rests upon royal recognition that is wrongly presumed to have legal validity, is that the claim of the pretender "recognized" as "legitimate" in this article, Dom Duarte Duke of Braganza, rests largely on the same basis (the 1922 post-monarchy Pact of Paris). While I don't equate the two claims (I happen to consider Dom Duarte the "rightful pretender"), I consider that Wiki's obligation is to approach them without pre-conceived bias, process information about them in the same way, and encourage readers to make appropriate inferences about them by providing as much accurate, relevant data as possible. Since this article lists pretenders without presenting the evidence on which their claims are based, Wiki editors bear an extra responsibility to be objective and fair in selecting pretenders for inclusion. I get increasingly uncomfortable with arguments that Wiki editors should substitute their judgment for that of Wiki's readership -- particularly with respect to a "line" of pretenders (and their royalist advocates) whose claim has persisted for 50 years now, and which I find mentioned in, for example, such respected works as Valynseele's "Les Prétendants aux Trônes d'Europe" (1967, page 308)) and Tourtchine's C.E.D.R.E. "Le Royaume de Portugal-L'Empire du Brésil", volume II (1987, Pages 177-178). Please, I don't want to hear the pros and cons of Maria Pia's or Dom Duarte's claims here -- I want to read about both -- or neither -- in the appropriate articles in Wikipedia. Lethiere 02:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deposed monarchs

The opening paragraph of the article presently contains the following sentence: "Deposed monarchs are not seen as pretenders, as the term only applies to those who have never occupied the throne." Nonsense! There are all sorts of published sources which describe deposed monarchs who continue to claim their thrones as "pretenders" or "claimants" (indeed, often such deposed monarchs are far far more active as pretenders or claimants than the descendants of long-ago monarchs). Today somebody removed the entry on Bulgaria. Can we agree to remove the sentence about deposed monarchs and to add several countries with deposed monarchs to the list of modern pretenders? Noel S McFerran 23:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not opposed to this at all. What do you think of clearing up the talk page a little as well? Charles 23:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Simeon, Michael, and Constantine should certainly be listed here. Are there any other living former monarchs? Some of the rulers of Indian princely states are the only ones I can think of, and maybe Laos. john k 16:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the former King of Afghanistan, as well. john k 16:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a list of Surviving deposed monarchs.195.93.21.9 16:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False pretenders

I have made a few edits to this section, regularising the entries and trying to make it more neutral. I would like to suggest a better (i.e. less POV) section heading, perhaps "Controversial pretenders". Can somebody come up with a better suggestion? I know that some of the ongoing edits from a certain editor are irritating, but I try to learn something positive from this experience. On the page Jacobite succession a difficult editor (he's got himself blocked several times for abusive language) was challenging things, but in spite of the fact that he was difficult, I think that the edits I made in response to his challenges were in the end an improvement in the page. Perhaps we can hope for something similar here. Noel S McFerran 21:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Controversial pretenders" seems to be bending over backwards the other way. The Duke of Aosta, for instance, is a controversial pretender, but he doesn't really belong with this bunch. But I agree that "false pretenders" is not very good, either. john k 23:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Royal Houses

May I draw to people's attention the existence of another wiki-article which duplicates much of this page (the other page was created September 28, 2006 by an anonymous editor). I think that this other page could be most misleading to many readers. Fortunately it is only linked to from one other page at present. Noel S McFerran 21:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that that article is bad, especially what with calling these people "Emperor Suchandsuch", which of course they are not. The images of the coats of arms are nice, though. it ought to be deleted. john k 23:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Fernidad Frederick (Prussia)

Pretender: King Fernidad Frederick of Prussia
Born	December 20, 1977 (age 29)
Regnal name claimed	King Fernidad Frederick of Prussia
Title(s) if any	King of Prussia
Throne claimed	Prussia
Pretend from	Prussia
Monarchy abolished	1918
Last monarch	William II
Connection with	Prince Augustus William of Prussia
Royal House	Hohenzollern
Father	Donello Stephen William Alexander Theodore I Frederick of Prussia
Mother	Marie-Jean Lea Gervais
Children	Prince Ferdinand Frederick (1996-present)
Predecessor	William II

I'm stuck on this one, Is he a Claimant, Pretender, Fake-Pretender or Mental Illness? He has a website at www.houseofhohenzollern.com and claims to be related to the Prussian Royal Family and is the current "King". The problem is that there is no current "King of Prussia" so what does that make him as far as a Pretender, since there is no ligitimate claim for "King" at this point? Intuitionz 08:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The legitimate claimant to be King of Prussia is Prince Georg Friedrich. He doesn't call himself King of Prussia, but he is recognized as the genealogical representative of the Kings of Prussia, and treated as head of house by other members of the family (although I believe his uncle, Prince Friedrich Wilhelm, who renounced his claims when he married unequally, has tried to take back his renunciation and claim the headship of house). King Fernidad Frederick is somewhere between fake-pretender and mental illiness. He doesn't even spell Ferdinand right! I would suggest that he's not even notable - every idiot with a website is not notable, even if they pretend to be the King of Bohemia. john k 12:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, at least "Fernidad Frederick" has made up a genealogical claim which, if true, could conceivably make him the rightful heir to the Prussian throne. That's already better than old Dom Rosario. john k 12:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change to meaning of pretender

I came here to point out that, as currently defined in the article, "pretender" would be inapplicable to many of the people on the list; however, I can see that many of my points were already made above. For example, Franz, Duke of Bavaria has never actually made a claim to the throne of England, Scotland and Ireland. Should the definition of "pretender" be modified to include those people on whose behalf claims are made, whether or not the person actually makes the claim him/herself? JChap2007 19:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any response to the above, or to the previous, now-archived, more comprehensive comment along the same lines. Accordingly, I am clarifying the definition of pretender. I don't think this affects Hilda Toledano one way or the other. JChap2007 20:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What on earth?

Some sources suggest that Alice, Duchess of Calabria, is a pretender to the throne of England. This is because she is the senior descendant of King Edward the Confessor.(See, [1]). However, this is debateable - firstly, because the kingship of England in the Anglo-Saxon period was elective; secondly, because Edward had no children and, thus, cannot possibly have any living descendants; and, thirdly, senior descandant means she is the eldest living representatives of Edward the Confessor, rather than the closest living relation.

This whole material is incredibly confusing, poorly written, and ridiculous, and I've removed it. It makes factual statements only to contradict them in the next sentence - Alicia is the senior descendant of Edward the Confessor, except that Edward the Confessor has no descendants. Alicia's claim is as follows: she is the heir-general of Edmund Ironside, eldest son of King Ethelred the Unready and elder brother to Edward the Confessor. She is also the heir-general to Edmund Ironside's granddaughter Margaret, who married King Malcolm III of Scotland. She is not the "oldest" descendant, she is the genealogically senior most descendant, in the same way that if the Queen and Prince Charles died tomorrow, Prince William would be the senior descendant of Electress Sophia, even though he would most certainly not be the oldest descendant of Electress Sophia, or even the oldest descendant of the present queen. The whole business appears to have been written by someone who only knows enough about genealogy to mislead others. The argument that Alicia's claim is invalid because the Anglo-Saxon throne was elective is perhaps valid, but the rest of it all seems to be misleading and ignorant nonsense. At any rate, perhaps some mention of Alicia is in order but it ought to be written by someone who knows what they're talking about. john k 22:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear John, from the edit history I found that the contradictions are due to different editors putting their input, and different editor changing a term where another term was used by earlier editor.... It seems to have been attempts from several to present different arguments, as is actually the idea of NPOV policy. Possibly they do not use coherent terminology with each other - that's probably the reason for contradictions you found. I oppose deletion of information. A mention about Alicia's claim to be representative of Anglo-saxon kingdom is needed hee, because Alicia's family makes that assertion, for example in their website. Marrtel 15:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to write something that's clear and not completely crazy and wrong, go ahead. Alicia is the genealogical representative of Edmund Ironside. That's a fact. She is also the heir-general, I believe, of David I of Scotland. Also a fact. I have no problem with mentioning either of those things. (If she's going to be mentioned, though, I think her much stronger claim to be heiress of the Kingdom of Navarre should also be mentioned). They are genealogical fictions, and were never used by her Bourbon ancestors even when it might have been useful for them to do so - Louis XIV and XV never claimed the English throne for themselves, in spite of their rather ironic status as heirs-general to the Anglo-Saxon dynasty, they just supported the Stuarts. What we don't need, though are nonsensical counterarguments made by people who know absolutely nothing about genealogy. Say that Alicia is the heiress of Edward the Confessor's older brother if you like. But she isn't very much of a real pretender. Does she have any actual supporters? Her claim seems comparable to that of the Earl of Loudoun, or Lady Kinloss - it's an interesting genealogical extrapolation, not a real claim. john k 14:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi again

I've semi'd this cos of the reverting. If anyone (not in the revert war) can tell me what this Hilda Toledano nonsense is, I'd be grateful. User talk:Justiceiro is supposedly a sock, so gets 24h. What a mess William M. Connolley 20:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

One side regards her a hoax pretender, another side (apparently her supporters) are opposing putting her to list of falses. It all goes to the merits of those Portugiese claims, an issue not to be decided in this article. I would like to see all classification between falses and trues erased (who is to decide here between those, anyway?) and all pretenders of any monarchy should listed here - and their individual articles, or an article about an individual claim, explains then all pros and cons. At the moment, list of falses seems mostly comprised of persons who actually did not claim a monarchy, only a membershipin a dynasty. That's not pretendership, is it? If so, we can get rid of the classification by having an own article for royal impostors. Marrtel 15:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It does not merely go to the merits of the Portuguese claims. If Anna Anderson had claimed that she was the heiress of the Russian Imperial throne, there would of course be very strong legal arguments against such a claim, and in favor of the claims of Grand Dukes Cyril and Vladimir, due to the Pauline laws that governed the Russian succession - Anastasia would not have been her father's heir even if she had survived. But those wouldn't be the only issue, as most people thought that she was not in fact Nicholas's daughter at all, making the Pauline laws irrelevant. I would say that the consensus view is that Maria Pia/Hilda Toledano was not in fact the daughter of Carlos I. This can be ascertained without reference to Portuguese succession laws by reference to the standard works on European royal genealogy (Burke's Royal Families of the World, the GHdA, the Almanach de Gotha, and so forth), none of which list or have ever listed Maria Pia as a daughter of Carlos I. As such, one oughtn't need to get into the legal ins and outs of Portuguese law, but merely to the fact that we have to use reliable sources, and that reliable sources do not regard her as a daughter of Carlos I. I agree, though, that an article on royal impostors makes more sense. john k 17:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

These genealogical sources only list children born in legitimate marriage (with some exceptions for Burke) or legitimated by subsequent marriage of their parents. They do not, for instance, list the legitimated children of Louis XIV, even though two of them (the duc du Maine and the comte de Toulouse) were also recognized as having succession rights for a while (as were the Valois-Orleans ducs de Longueville). One would not expect to find Maria Pia listed in these reference works. Reputable genealogical sources that have examined and dismissed (or accepted) Maria Pia's kinship to Carlos I should be cited in Wiki's references to her. Lethiere 20:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If I've cited the wrong specific sources, my apologies (although such sources might have a bearing on Maria Pia's claims to the right to succeed her purported half-brother on the Portuguese throne, I already said that that was somewhat beside the point). But there are reputable reference works on genealogy, and I would strongly doubt that any of them consider Maria Pia to be a daughter of Carlos I. If they do this because they have examined her claims and found them wanting, all the better. But that shouldn't be necessary - even if none of them mention Maria Pia only because they haven't heard of her claim, that is good enough. Our default position is that Maria Pia was not the daughter of Carlos I. We can't prove a negative. There have to be reliable sources that state that she is Carlos I's daughter. Until someone can find such a source, we are justified in calling her an impostor, I think. john k 21:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Because the sources you cite didn't include the duc du Maine or comte de Toulouse, would that justify Wiki classifying them as impostors? It's insufficient to say that "there are reputable reference works on genealogy, and I would strongly doubt that any of them consider Maria Pia to be a daughter of Carlos I." That is an unverified assumption, and no more appropriate to base a Wiki position of "impostorship" on than the unverified assumptions about the validity of her birth and dynastic claim put forth by her supporters. Nor does "there have to be reliable sources that state that she is Carlos I's daughter". There need only be a reliable source that indicates the matter is uncertain, or that merely reports the allegation. The standard of proof here is neither the truth of her birth nor the validity of her dynastic rights, but the notability of her claim. Why not present what we can find on Maria Pia to Wiki's readership, pro and con, and let them decide if she is an impostor? Lethiere 04:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What? Even if the Gotha didn't include the Comte de Toulouse, there are plenty of reliable sources that say that the Comte de Toulouse was Louis XIV's son. Our aim in this article is to present standard understandings of royal genealogy, and the standard understanding is that Maria Pia is an impostor. I'm perfectly happy to call her Maria Pia, if this is what she went by - I also think we should call Michael of Albany "Michael of Albany." But NPOV doesn't mean we present all opinions as equivalent. It means we give each of them "due weight." What weight is due to the belief that she is really the daughter of King Carlos? How much weight to the opinion that she is the legitimate heir to the Portuguese throne under the 1838 constitution? As far as I can gather, neither of these opinions has ever been very widely held. john k 14:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how one measures "standard understandings" if not by citing reputable sources on the matter, which you haven't done. I would argue that Wiki's aim is to present verifiable findings about royalty, which is much more measurable than "standard". I agree that it would be tedious and counter-productive to have to cite references for every widely accepted point mentioned in Wikipedia, and do not mean to suggest that is required. But once a point has been challenged by an alternative interpretation of facts that cites sources, it can no longer simply be excluded from Wikipedia by saying that it is not the "standard understanding". At that point, the grounds for considering Wiki's POV standard must be cited -- and even then that may be insufficient to exclude a differing POV which, if there is any chance the documents cited are accurate (and is any of us in a position to certify that Maria Pia's aren't?) it is properly handled by reporting the controversy, citing the allegations and the facts purported to support them, and leaving it to readers to draw their own conclusions. I entirely agree that the space allocated to the Maria Pia POV should be "due weight". But that's where I have a problem with your argument: in the very few reputable sources I have to hand (and have mentioned here), her claim is not ignored, but reported.

Whether or not she was Charles' natural daughter is questionable but the fact that any descent of hers from Charles would be from an adulterous line is a MASSIVE no-no in any succession law. Therefore her claims to be Duchess of Braganza make her an imposter. Charles 04:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The most important court in the world for the Roman Catholic Church, the Sacred Roman Rota in the 1982 issued with FINAL judgement the validity of the baptisimal documents of Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza, destroyed during the Spanish Civil War, and in these documents are reported the name as her father of the king Charles of Portugal. Witness in this case were important personalities as for example the king of Spain Alfonso XIII, big friend of the king Charles of Portugal. Was also confirmed the validity of the document with which the king recognised Maria Pia as his daughter and that provided "she may be called by my name and enjoy from now on the use of this name with the honours, prerogatives, rank, obligations and advantages of the princes of the House of Bragança of Portugal". This was an important document and the will of the king was evident. The Royal House of Saxe Coburg Braganza was a Roman Catholic monarchy so this final judgement of the Sacred Roman Rota has a unique and irrefutable value: Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza was the daughter of the king Charles and she was for the will of the king the pretender of the Saxe Coburg Braganza branch, the only legitimate branch of the Royal House of Portugal. The illegitimate decisiones of Salazar, the dictator friend of Duarte Nuno in order to "legitimize" this pretender has no value because this dictator has no power to decide who was the legitimate pretender of the Royal House of Portugal. At the contrary the Duchess of Braganza Maria Pia opposed the dictator Salazar in order to supported the democratic general Humberto Delgado. Dear Charles, the succession law issued the categorical and perpetually prohibition of the miguelist branch in order to became king of Portugal and these miguelists, after the Banishment Law, became plebeians for will of the Cortes and the king of Portugal, so after this Banishment who is the king that granted them the title of Duke of Braganza? This is a big abuse of Duarte Nuno and Duarte Pio, they are dukes of anything, they were foreign and plebeians and their claims to be the legitimate dukes of Braganza a big joke. If not please explain here the contrary but with official documents and not with talks. For example where I can see the "ghost" pact of Dover and Paris with the will and the sign of the king Manuel? The claim of Maria Pia are based only on official and existing documents so please also the pretender Duarte proves with existent documents his claims. At the end the most important Encyclopedia of portuguese History, "Història de Portugal Vol. III A.H. de Oliveira Marques" indicates Maria Pia as portuguese pretender. This is an impartial and objective source. Justiceiro 08:00, 06 November 2006 (UTC)

This is all nonsense. I find it ridiculous that people keep interposing to call me to account for saying perfectly reasonable things, and lets these constant flows of utter ridiculousness from Justiceiro go by without comment. john k 14:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember the degree to which it is alleged to be "nonsense" and "ridiculous" the next time some editor on Wiki is incensed that you dare to disagree with him on a point he considers too obvious to have to prove :-) I agree with you and disagree with Justiceiro on Maria Pia/Poidimani, and I think I do so for good reasons that are, I'm sure, the same as yours. But there are three differences: 1. I think Justiceiro will hoist himself with his own petard if we give him sufficient rope. 2. I think that it is a mistake for a Wiki article titled "Pretender" to assert that there are "legitimate" pretenders and "illegitimate" pretenders, and to arrogate the prerogative of deciding which is which. 3. I am dismayed that someone whose knowledge and good judgment in these matters I not only respect in these discussions but habitually rely upon, should take up the position of summary censorship of a minority, but not obscure or impossible, line of reasoning. There are other editors interested in these articles who, even when knowledgeable, do not hesitate to substitute their personal views for facts and/or the collective wisdom of this group. I have always perceived your input to be far more committed to objectivity, fairness, and collegiality, and you as willing to let the chips fall where they may even if that doesn't accord with your own pre-conceptions or preferences. I consider Justiceiro, in all his various puppet-forms, to be a crank or, even more pitifully, a true believer. Whereas, I consider you an authority here. So yes, my standard of expectation from you is vastly higher. That said, I may indeed be the one who is out-of-line on all of these points, but I am willing to engage you so that we can discover the relevant truth together. In all respect, Lethiere 18:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[Ending indenting]. Lethiere, let me respond to your points.

1. Surely Justiceiro has already hoist himself by his own petard by any reasonable standard. Wikipedia should not be a place for interested parties to push their fringe POVs.
2. I agree to an extent. It's certainly not wikipedia's job to judge between the rival claimants for the French, Sicilian, and Brazilian thrones, for instance. It may not be our job to judge between the Prince of Naples and the Duke of Aosta (or do we have to call him the "Duke of Savoy" now?), or between Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia and his uncle. At the same time, it is perfectly appropriate for Wikipedia to make some judgments. If there is very strong evidence to suggest that a person is not who they say they are, it ought to be fine for wikipedia to say as much. I would expand this to say that if there is no apparent legal basis in the former monarchy for a person's claim, it doesn't really matter if they are an actual dynast. For instance, if Prince Michael of Greece decided tomorrow to claim the Greek throne, on the basis that he is a male line descendant of King George I, but without even a shred of an explanation as to why the former King and his children should be excluded, I think it would be entirely acceptable to indicate that there is no apparent basis for such a claim. There has to be some plausible basis for a claim. We oughtn't to be making such judgments ourselves, but there are reliable sources that have made such judgments, and it ought to be fine to rely on them. Obviously, though, this is question of degree. But I don't think the only issue is that if two people are both notable for claiming a throne, we can't make any judgment between them. As of the period of the July Monarchy, there were two legitimist claimants to the French throne. One, the Comte de Chambord, was the genuine claimant. The other, Naundorff, was an impostor. Surely the two, one real, the other false, should not be listed as though they are equivalent to one another simply because both are well known and had followers?
3. I don't think I'm advocating censorship at all. A problem with this discussion, perhaps, is that nobody is very clear what exactly we are are arguing for in terms of article content. Perhaps I've been particularly deficient in this regard. Let me try to outline it:
   1. First, I do not think Dom Rosario should be in the list of pretenders here. While Maria Pia is probably notable, there has been little evidence to suggest he is. His article was, in fact, deleted following a vote for deletion as being non-notable. This may or may not have been appropriate, but until the point that his article is recreated, his being listed here shouldn't be up for discussion until that deletion decision is reversed. Even then, I question whether his claim has very much more notability than that of Prince Fernidad Frederick, or, on another side, the "claim" of Princess Alicia of Bourbon-Parma to the English throne. Whether Maria Pia herself should be listed in the main list is entirely moot - she is dead, and the list is only of current claimants.
   2. Second, I think that Maria Pia's life and claims ought to be discussed fairly and neutrally in the article devoted to her. I would have no problem with moving that article to the name she used for much of her life, even if that name was, as I believe, based on false pretenses, so long as the article is fairly clear on this.
   3. Third, I see no particular problem with listing Maria Pia among the impostor pretenders, as this is what she is generally considered to be. I would, however, support the development of more neutral wording on the subject.

What exactly are the other issues at hand here? I fear that we've gotten rather far afield from the specifics of articles, and into more philosophical territory. john k 01:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, no progress being made here, as we're beginning to repeat our arguments. Let us agree to disagree. Lethiere 05:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you disagree with everything? Is it your position that Dom Rosario should be listed in the list of pretenders? Do you think it's wrong to treat the Comte de Chambord and Naundorff as substantively different during the period of the July Monarchy? I'm not sure I can agree to disagree because I'm not sure what your argument is in terms of what we actually do to the articles. I can't imagine that you disagree with my 3.2, do you? I have some further thoughts on "real pretenders" vs. "fake pretenders," depending on your answer above. john k 13:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the current claimant of Maria Pia's "line" should be listed in this article, whose content is what I understood us to be negotiating. Her claim has been consistently asserted for 50 years, persisting years beyond her death; there are official documents relevant to the claim; there are advocates for the claim; there's evidence of interest in the claim; the claim has been reported for decades in reputable sources that provide information about pretenders to thrones; and there is enough verifiable information relevant to the claim and the identity of the claimants for Wikipedia to shed some light on the matter for the general reader. Of course I don't think the comte de Chambord and Naundorff should be treated as if the findings about their identities/claims are equivalent; that's what I meant when I agreed that "due weight" should be assigned to coverage of differing POVs. But if C.E.D.R.E. can give an entire page to coverage of her claim, never even hint that its editor has an opinion in the matter, and yet the reader emerges with a fairly strong and clear sense of the gravamen of evidence, I can't see why that's beyond Wiki, which has far more resources and editors at its command than C.E.D.R.E. had when its article was written. Unless every pretender mentioned in the article must have an independent article about him/her, it is a red herring whether or not Wiki has one: It is the claim that has attained sufficient notability to be included in an article named Pretender, whether or not every bearer of that claim is individually notable. Surely it goes without saying that in every Wiki subject's bio, her "life and claims ought to be discussed fairly and neutrally in the article devoted to her"? And that article's name should reflect how she is most commonly referred to in English? Since no one has disagreed that Wiki should remain "neutral" between "bona fide" but rival claimants, that is also a red herring. I do not agree that Wiki can or should divide claimants up into "real pretenders" and "fake pretenders": There are pretenders, none of whose claims are recognized as legitimate by the regimes of the nations to which they pretend (despite trivial forms of acknowledgment they may receive from governments -- which pale beside the fundamental assertion of a right to reign). A subset of pretenders are impostors, whose legal claims may be less Wiki-notable (because bogus) than is the fact that they have sustained public interest, e.g. Anna Anderson, Kasper Hauser, Tancrede de Rohan, etc. We seem, in other words, to have reached a basic disagreement about what "pretender" means. Lethiere 21:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts here, then.

1. In the first place, you'll note that the most recent edit warring on this page has been between whether or not Maria Pia should be listed as an impostor, not whether or not Dom Rosario should be listed as a current pretender. This is part of why I was confused as to what exactly we were arguing about.
2. In the second place, let's assume that Maria Pia's claim is notable, and that, were she still alive, it would be appropriate to list her as a claimant, however legally and factually dubious her claims may have been. Do we have any reliable sources, though, that she transmitted her claim to Dom Rosario? As far as I am aware, this is a claim which is basically asserted by websites created by Dom Rosario, and in statements on the web by his supporters. Maria Pia had actually blood relations, some of whom are presumably still alive. That Dom Rosario should properly be considered to be Maria Pia's successor seems in some doubt. In the absence of any clear evidence of that, we need to ask whether his claim, in itself, is notable, without connecting it to Maria Pia's, which seems a dubious connection (unless we can find genuine independent sources on it, in which case I'll withdraw this point). Dom Rosario has already been judged to be not notable, and his article was deleted. Unless we can find strong, reliable sources to connect his claim properly to Maria Pia's, it seems to me that it is very problematic to list him on the basis that he is the successor to her claim.

   I haven't examined the validity of Dom Rosario's connection to Maria Pia. If it is demonstrably false, I agree with you. If it is dubious, we can simply cite the evidence that makes it so. Lethiere 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

   Lethiere, I think I'm coming closer to the difference between us, which is more or less one of burden of proof. In my view, it is up to Dom Rosario's supporters to provide reliable evidence for their own claims. It is not our responsibility to disprove them. john k 01:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

   Agreed that it's about burden of proof, I see our difference as lying in what that proof must be adduced for: You seem to insist that potential pretenders in this article prove the plausibility of their claim to the satisfaction of editors here. I think their burden is merely to show its notability, thereby qualifying the claim's rationale for evaluation by Wiki's readership -- not its editors. If, when discussing the Portuguese pretendership, it is reasonably likely that the Maria Pia/Dom Rosario claim will be brought up, Wiki readers are helped by being able to look that claim up here, whether the information they then find tends to legitimize or to debunk the claim's validity. Lethiere 21:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Thirdly, in a perfect world I think your basic position would have a great deal of merit. I am however, far less confident than you that Wikipedia will be able to reach the clarity of a source like C.E.D.R.E. on topics such as this. I think your proposed solution makes it very easy for a more intelligent and subtle POV pusher than Justiceiro/Manuel de Sousa/whatever he's called to make a real mess of things. This is perhaps not in itself a justifiable reason to

   Actually, I think this is your strongest argument. I've noticed how easy it is for someone determined to have his way to game the system, then cover his tracks. I'm more willing to support exclusion (of an article or topic within an article) as a remedy when it's used against repeat offenders whose multiple attempts to compel Wiki to reflect their views can be documented by looking at the pattern of their disputes on other articles. Lethiere 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

   Certainly this is the case for the Dom Rosario supporter who has, under various user names/IP addresses, been involved in wikipedia. At least, in my view. john k 01:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

   To the extent that he seeks to manipulate Wikipedia into reflecting his specific views of the Maria Pia/Dom Rosario claim, I agree that exclusion of that POV is appropriate. To the extent that he maintains that Wiki is censoring a person whose name is apt to come up in discussions about Portuguese pretenders, and thereby denying readers access to information in Wiki about that pretender's claim, I think his advocacy has merit. Lethiere 21:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

4. Fourthly, I don't think that the points I made about my desire for a fair article and a title at a location where the person was actually called go at all without saying. Notice our articles at Hilda Toledano and Michel Lafosse. In the latter case, proposals to move to Michael of Albany have met with fairly staunch opposition. Notice the people who, on the Anna Anderson page, have wished to simply give Franziska Schanzkowska's birthdate as being Anna Anderson's birthdate. Until this dispute arose, I've generally found that, in being in favor of these two things, I've quite frequently been in the middle position in disputes over these kinds of issues. There are a lot of people who just want to say that Anna Anderson was Franziska Schanzkowska, for instance.

   Point taken. But that doesn't resolve this article. Lethiere 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

   Indeed it doesn't. john k 01:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

5. Finally, it would appear that there is a fundamental disagreement here about what it means to be a pretender. In my view, to an extent one can categorize pretenderships into different categories, some of which are more real than others. In the first place, I think that you are putting too much emphasis on the "fundamental assertion of a right to reign" as a characteristic of pretenders. I would suggest that most pretenders, at present, make no such assertion. The heads of the historic royal houses of Europe generally claim, as far as I can tell, to be, well, the head of their house, the genealogicla heirs to the ancient dynasty that once ruled the country, and to be open to the possibility of restoration, should the people decide that this is a good idea. They can be fierce in their opposition to rival claimants, but few today seem to actually deny the legitimacy of the republican governments currently in place. This may not be true of all claimants (the former Balkan monarchs seem to tend to make stronger claims, perhaps because there is a greater possibility of an actual restoration), but as far as I can gather it is more or less the basic position of many of them. Certainly most do not express a Bourbon Legitimist/Jacobite view of divine right and de jure kingship. In the second place, I think you are underestimating the extent to which pretendership has real world results. Oftentimes, much of the property of former monarchs has been inherited by their descendants. Certainly this is true in Germany, where many of the ruling families, at least in the west, still live in the same habitations that their royal ancestors did, and still own large estates that derive from their royal predecessors. In Serbia, iirc, Crown Prince Alexander was given use of (ownership of, even?) some of the old royal palaces in Belgrade. Sometimes the republican governmtsn more less officially recognize them as representatives of the ancient dynasty. Obviously this is not true of all "real" pretenders, but one of those features or another is generally fairly common. So long as we have reliable source s on this subject, it's perfectly reasonable to make judgments on the basis of that. john k 13:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

   Agreed that most "bona fide" pretenders don't actively assert a right to reign anymore. But that simply calls into question the accuracy of Wiki's designating them "pretenders" (or "claimants"; the same holds true for the prevalent euphemism employed among monarchists) at all. I have previously argued that a term closer to the reality in such cases is "historic heir". But since that phrase would be a neologism, it wouldn't get these ex-royals into Wikipedia, which seems to be the agreed-upon objective in this article. If we are straining the meaning of the term "pretender", that needs to be looked at, more than does the fact that, in the normal meaning of the word, there is no legal distinction between "legitimate pretenders" and "fake pretenders". As for the legal, official and unofficial marks of distinction accorded to historical heirs that are not enjoyed by impostors, while these are of great interest within chivalric, genealogical & monarchist circles, I contend that they are trivial to the vast majority (what most deem relevant about these dynasties is the act/date of deposition and the absence, to date, of restoration) and therefore don't merit hyped importance in Wiki. Lethiere 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

   There is no question in my mind that heirs to various royal claims are notable for wikipedia purposes. There was a relatively recent Vanity Fair article that profiled many of them, for instance. Before the late Comte de Paris' death in 1999, I had read several mainstream media articles that discussed him. Dr. Otto Habsburg frequently shows up in the media, and so forth. Do you think that any other elderly Italian aristocrat's arrest for pandering would have gotten as much news coverage as the Prince of Naples' did? I've seen Crown Prince Alexander on CNN, and read articles in the Washington Post on Grand Duchess Maria and her son. Whatever we call them, these people are clearly notable. This is perhaps less true of the heirs to some of the lesser German thrones, but they are certainly no less notable than your average British hereditary peer, all of whom have been treated as notable for wikipedia purposes. Certainly, as a rule, they do not bear the same level of notability of a reigning royal, but they are, nonetheless, I think, clearly notable. There is no need to use some particular term to "get them into wikipedia." As to whether there is no distinction between "legitimate pretenders" and "fake pretenders," sure. But different claims have different levels of notability. In the 19th century, the claims of the Comte de Chambord, after 1844 the undoubted heir to the senior line of the House of France, were worlds more important than the claims of an impostor like Naundorff (or even, at the time, the claims of the Bonapartes). That the various actual privileges and so forth enjoyed by pretenders are not of incredible importance to the general public seems irrelevant - if Dom Duarte Pio is not important to most Portuguese, how much less so is his "rival"? john k 01:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

   I think it is still a matter of debate whether monarchical claims to no-longer-extant countries (Hanover, Navarre, Two Sicilies) are notable: it seems to me that when Wiki editors who only occasionally run into such articles do so, they often conclude that the article is, or is encrusted with, non-notable "royalty-cruft". Also, many editors whose focus is recent national politics or history in extant countries (i.e. Greece, Romania, Iran, etc), find these articles and references unacceptably (pro-monarchist) POV as well, because of the tendency to refer to ex-dynasts as if still reigning. Nor is their notability comparable to that of British peers, which derives from the fact that until recently they were members of a national legislature. Thus an article on pretenders can usefully collect and report on obscure princes, diminishing the tendency to "load" info about ex-royalty in other articles. But that brings us back to the question of whether "pretender" has been stretched in meaning to allow us to shoe-horn into it persons who do not genuinely "pretend" to a "right to reign" (or at least seriously express their eligibility therefor) -- thereby driving us into arguments and evaluations that are not about whether a claim is asserted (which makes the person, ipso facto, a "pretender" -- though not necessarily a notable one), but whether someone is rightfully "the historical heir" of some ex-dynasty -- which is not what pretender/claimant means outside of monarchist/genealogical jargon. Lethiere 21:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

About your second point see WP:ROYAL and in particular Pretenders to European thrones are considered notable, as are their consorts and heirs-apparent and presumptive. This can be extended to other pretenderships if it can be demonstrated that the pretendership itself is notable.Justiceiro 21:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That phrase (in a page which is merely a proposal, not a guideline) was intended to refer to non-controversial pretenders. Otherwise the proposal means that King Fernidad Frederick of Prussia is automatically notable. Its wording ought to be changed. john k 12:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)