Wikipedia talk:Notability (royalty)/Archive2

message: Okay, I've made some changes to the guideline. As I said at the beginning, I knew my American ignorance would make this tough. I never meant this to be a way to restrict articles about members of actual royal families. They are, of course, notable. Hopefully that is more clear now. One section defines royalty, who are automatically notable. A second section outlines the criteria for inclusion of other nobles. The succession order is meant to apply only to those other nobles (not those in the royal family). I've also changed that from 10th to 8th, in keeping with the historical examples given above (now in Archive1). Many thanks to Lethiere for providing those examples and clearing up my mistakes. Kafziel 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: I agree with the idea that members of currently reigning families should clearly be included.  But what about members of formerly reigning families.  For one example, there is currently an AfD on Angelica Kreuger, a granddaughter of the last King of Romania.  Beyond that, what about pretenders of families that haven't reigned for a long long time?  For instance, there are numerous members of the House of Orleans, or what not.  Do they count as royalty?  Does the head of house count as "King" for the purposes of the rule?  Or what? john k 20:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Angelica Kreuger is not royalty and is hardly notable. Her mother, however, clearly is royal and therefore is more notable. I believe the heads of dynasties are notable by default. Charles 20:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I basically agree. I was just saying that if we are to have such a policy page as this (I'm not convinced we ought to), it ought to deal with this. john k 21:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I think it will be much harder to get buy-in for members of dethroned dynasties. WP editors from current republics of past monarchies have already shown a particular resentment and resistance to according their former reigning dynasties "notability" in general, and their former royal titles in particular. Moreover, this would vastly increase the number of entries, because some countries (Germany, Russia, Italy) have had numerous dynasties that long ago reigned over portions of those countries. The fact is, many articles on these families are already on WP, placed by those interested in history, heraldry, genealogy, monarchy, etc. A massive deletion of such articles might ensue if they are ever officially deemed "non-notable". That is an argument for letting sleeping dogs lie. The counter-argument is that republicans and egalitarians on Wiki will always outnumber those that find royalty and nobility intrinsically interesting, and absent any guideline that validates and delimits such entries, once the proliferation of such articles comes to their attention they will eventually start out-voting those that value them, or will adopt a policy to ban or restrict them. On a related note, I've put forth an argument in defense of Angelica Kreuger based not on notability due to monarch kinship (in her case), but on membership in the Line of succession to the British Throne, arguing that the special laws applicable to those in that line make them a rare class of persons, noteworthy for that reason. That list includes a huge chunk of Protestant/Orthodox royalty, some Catholic royalty, and a fair-sized slice of Europe's higher nobility. Lethiere 00:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't saying any members of dethroned dynasties, but the heads of dethroned dynasties.  In terms of legal restrictions, I think it's arguably that anyone affected by the Royal Marriages Act is notable on that basis.  That would include most of the people we think of as connected to the British royal family, and the main restriction you talked about on the Kreuger page (having to get the Queen's permission to marry).  Kreuger does not fall into that category - her great-great-grandmother Queen Marie was a princess who married a foreigner.  She does not have to ask the queen's permission to marry.  I'm not sure the Act of Settlement, in and of itself, is sufficient to claim notability. john k 00:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My personal opinion is that the resentment of republicans/anit-monarchists from various former kingdoms all but proves the subjects to be non-notable. The fact that people have very strong opinions on such royals contributes to their notability. But this is all my opinion. Charles 00:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean that it proves them to be notable, I imagine? john k 12:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes :D Charles 19:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretenders 

message: I think what needs to be done is to separate
Here would be my proposal:
#Anyone who was, at one point, an actual, official member of an actual ruling family of a country is considered notable.  How this "actual, official member" is defined should be set by the country.  This would include former monarchies - if the person was born while the monarchy was still in existence, they are notable on that basis.  
#:In Britain, as an example, the official royal family currently comprises the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke of York, the Earl and Countess of Wessex, the Princess Royal, the children of the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York (and arguably, of the Earl of Wessex), The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the Duke and Duchess of Kent, Prince and Princess Michael, and Princess Alexandra.  Recently deceased members include Princess Margaret, the Queen Mother, and Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester.
#Pretenders to European thrones are automatically 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 is notable - being the genealogical heir of the Mings probably wouldn't qualify you, but if the dynastic claim is meaningful, the holder is too, if that makes any sense)
#Any children of a deposed monarch, even if born after the deposition, are automatically notable (thus, for instance, the younger children of the former King of the Hellenes, or all the children of the former Kings of Romania and Bulgaria).
#Other close relations of current reigning royal family can be included, I think, based on the criteria you have set for nobility, or if they qualify under WP:BIO.
#:Further thought: This might not be sufficient.  Looking at the British royal family, fairly distant members get a lot of press coverage.  But they might then qualify for WP:BIO under The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.  john k 01:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This all looks great to me, and you've worded it in a way I couldn't have. It seems fair (not anglocentric) and I think it's in keeping with what I've seen so far in the way of precedence and the general feelings of consensus. I would support a complete rewrite of the guideline in this vein. I think the great thing about this is that it can't possibly hurt an article's chances of inclusion here, because we always have BIO in the background to catch anyone who is notable but otherwise might have fallen through the cracks. Failing BIO, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on anyway. At least with a guideline like this, they have a chance. Great job. Kafziel 05:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you like it.  I'd like to hear some other opinions as well, to see if I'm overlooking anything.  I asked Lethiere to take a look over here, since he was involved in the previous discussions.  Do you know anyone else who might be interested? john k 15:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some further thoughts, royalty, nobility, and such like

message: Using the input from the discussions above, largely the suggestions from john k, I have posted a revised guideline. There are now three sections: members of royal families, higher nobility, and lesser nobility. The new version still allows royalty and most nobility to be automatically notable, while requiring distant relatives and lesser nobles (including those nobles from countries that do not officially recognize their titles) to qualify under WP:BIO. The WP:BIO requirement is already in place, so this guideline doesn't lessen anyone's chances of having an article here; it just excludes certain people from its protection, which was already the case before this guideline was created. 
Hopefully this guideline will help educate those of us who don't fully understand the difference between an Earl and an Archduke, and will give us some basis on which to form our positions. I want to thank everyone for their help and encourage further input. Kafziel 15:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite