Talk:Coregency

message: Why is this word Co-regency? There's no dash in any of my texts. I believe the word is supposed to be Coregency. Thanatosimii 21:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really hate it when I posit a question like this and get not one response. Oh well. All my literature says "Coregency" word, so coregency it shall be. Be bold after all. Thanatosimii 21:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this word Co-regency?

message: From the part of the Primogeniture article that links to this Coregency article (emphasis mine):
An ancient and alternative way in which women managed to rise to power, specially without displacing the direct male line descendants of the first monarchs, is the historical Consortium or Coregency between husband and wife or other relatives...
First of all, which usage is correct, initial caps or no capitalization?
Should we change the first sentence of this Coregency article to include Consortium as a synonym? Again, emphasis is mine:
A coregency (also co-principality or consortium) is the situation where a monarchical position (such as king, queen, emperor or empress), normally held by only a single person, is held by two.
If so, we should also update the Consortium (disambiguation) page. 
Thanks, Geekdiva (talk) 09:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consortium? 

message: Where are the references for the use of this term? It seems to be another example of editors producing a term and applying it to a number of states and institutions without either citations. A 'regent' is someone who reigns in place of a monarch. So a 'co-regent' should be someone who exercises the office of regent with others. States have been governed by 'co-regents', though references would have to be produced to use the term in this context too! A better term for what the editors want to describe in this article might be 'co-monarch'.Gazzster (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference

message: I think this article misses important information.  Specifically why or how does coregency come about?  I was trying to figure out why William and Mary became coregents, but neither their article nor this one gives any clue as to why that might happen. 12.4.17.250 (talk) 17:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: William and Mary reigned jointly, but only William ruled. Parliament asked William of Orange to govern them in the name of his wife, but hye would only do so if he held the Crown jointly witrh her. So it depends what you mean by a coregency. This article has not the slightest reference to how this term is used, or even what it means. In common parlance a regent is a person who rules  in place of a monarch. So one of the  ministers of state that served in  the several councils of regency in English history might be called co-regents.Gazzster (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing important information 

message: The exclusion of Andorra from the definition of co-principality in the first paragraph is false. "Co-principality" is the term that I have seen used to describe Andorra for as long as I can remember (even despite the fact that the official name of the country is "Principality of Andorra"). Can anybody cite any sources justifying this exception? Largoplazo (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I had originally raised this question at Talk:Andorra, and the more I look into it, the more I wonder if the problem here is the equation of "coregency" and "co-principality" in the first sentence of the present article. I have done some searches of both terms, and they seem like two different things. One source I found states that "Coregencies are a familiar feature of Hellenistic dynastic strategy, which can usually be explained as a means of avoiding crises of succession or internal conflict, and of strengthening dynastic identity and ideology." That clearly doesn't describe the situation in Andorra. On the other hand, all of the references I can find to "co-principality" (or, less often, "coprincipality") refer specifically to Andorra. So I'd suggest a separate section here that would clearly delineate between the two terms. I'll try to write one in the next few days if no one else does first. blameless 05:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now done so. blameless 00:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  False exclusion in the lead paragraph