Talk:Petty kingdom

message: In Sweden the issue is not as straightforward as in Norway's case. 
Norway was not straight forward either. The kingdoms were united and de-united at frequent intervals, etc. I have just listed the petty kingdoms I know have existed. The articles for each kingdom may have more information as to when they existed, their rulers etc. -- Egil 10:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is much better now! Thanks to Caerwine. UnHoly 14:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Nowhere does it seem to suggest that this article is applicable for anyone but Western Europeans. --Dpr 15:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is the English Wikipedia, it stands to reason that it would have a Eurocentric bent. Dpodoll68 (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  geographic scope 

message: The article lists Northumbria as being in England, but Northumbria was divided between Scotland and England. The northern parts of Northumbria are now Lothian and Borders in Scotland. Scots invasions reduced Northumbria to an earldom stretching from the Humber to the Tweed because in 1018 Malcolm II brought the region as far as the River Tweed under Scottish rule.
Thus this petty kindom didn't unite with others, the Northumbrians territory was invaded and occupied by both Scotland and England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.71.130 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 6 March 2007
:Irrelevant.  Northumbria was an anglo-saxon kingdom, and therefore part of England, regardless of where the borders of England and Scotland may now lie. 91.109.147.190 (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added "present-day" to the wording about Scotland.  That should clarify things a bit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northumbria 

message: I would like to see an article on kingdoms in general. Topics could include, what makes up a kingdom, how is it defined? And the many different types of kingdoms throughout history. There are already articles on different types of governments and different countries, as well as economic theories. Am I looking for "monarchy"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.28.223 (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingdoms in general 

message: Could there be a citation for kinglet meaning kingdom? Is it's usage common? The Oxford English Dictionary version 2 has kinglet as a petty king, mostly contemptuous and also as a kind of wren. I haven't found mention of kinglet meaning kingdom. 'Petty kingdom' should be used if there is no common usage of kinglet meaning kingdom--Fodbynag (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who says kinglet means kingdom? 

message: I believe it should read
...but the ruling families were *not* considered morganatic for marriage considerations, and ranked equal to royal families in society.
OR
...but the ruling families were considered morganatic for marriage considerations, and ranked *not* equal to royal families in society.
OR
...but the ruling families were considered morganatic for marriage considerations, *but* ranked equal to royal families in society.
Morganatic marriage = mariage with a lower ranking wife => not equal to royal families
84.137.111.143 (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In Germany, the former ruling houses of the mediatized states continued to be eligible for (non-morganatic) royal marriages.  I agree with the first option, inserting not. —Tamfang (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible contradiction 

message: "petty kingdom" is just a subjective term, it isn't a topic in its own right. 
It is used of minor kingdoms when viewed in the context of the rise or decline of a larger, unified kingdom or empire.
In the same way, "petty king" or kinglet is a subjective or contemptuous term for a (comparatively) unimportant king. Cæsar termeth all the Lordes [...] to be Kinglets, or petie-kings. --dab (𒁳) 14:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: dictdef

message: Harald Fairhair certainly did not unite all the petty kingdoms listed in the article (for that matter, the term "petty kingdom" suggests greater internal cohesion than most of the mentioned entities ever possessed). Questionable 19th/early 20th century "nation-building" accounts tended to suggest he united most of them, but less romantic contemporary scholars generally agree that Harald only ever ruled Western Norway and small chunks of land in Eastern Norway directly and merely formed loose alliances with other petty kings. As a further caveat, "ruled" in this context basically meant "ran a successful long-term protection racket". Maitreya (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harald Fairhair 

message: Meaningless,  ludicrous article. While the expressions "petty state" "petty kingdom", "petty ruler" etc. do exist, it certainly does not justify creating articles around those expressions. It only mean states or kingdoms that are small, which, BTW, is a very SUBJECTIVE term. I suppose that for Americans, Belgium is petty kingdom, while Belgians may look at Tonga as a petty kingdom.....
If this page is justified, then I could find justification to create articles for "small village" "big tree" "petty leader" "petty argument" "medium-size kingdom" "king-size kingdom" "petty republic' "petty duchy" "average country" etc. etc. 
For all I know, maybe such articles already exist because pretty much anything goes in the petty kingdom of Wikipedia. --Lubiesque (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: raised this point above. Perhaps you should PROD or AFD it. Srnec (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The article rightly consentrates on medieval and earlier states, where the term is still in current use by historians, & has meaning. We shouldn't be talking about modern member-states of the UN. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Petty kingdom": possible topic for a quaint blog, but not for Wikipedia