Talk:Alexander of Greece

message: Couldn't we move this to Alexander I of Greece?  That's a natural disambiguator, unlike the annoying parentheses. john k 00:19, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur and done. Stan 05:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening heading 

message: Birth
"He was born on 1 August 1893 (21 July O.S.) at Tatoi near Athens ..."
* Well, that's a gap of only 11 days.  The actual gap between the Julian and Gregorian calendars in 1893 was 12 days.  So, either his Julian date was 20 July, or his Gregorian date was 2 August - but not both.  I have a private note that the relevant dates are: Julian 20 July, Gregorian 1 August - but no citation.  Can anyone clarify this?
::Now fixed, given no objections.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  13:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues with dates

message: An image used in this article, File:Greek 30 Drachma coin 1863.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Greek 30 Drachma coin 1863.JPG)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Greek 30 Drachma coin 1863.JPG Nominated for Deletion

message: The "Coronation" section says his accession was virtually secret, only three people attended, and that there were no festivities. That is totally at odds with this image of the event. DrKiernan (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, it doesn't refer to the same event. There was the "accession" (which was not secret but private) and then the oath in the Parliament. 85.69.7.51 (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: After some investigation, I confirm it does not refer to the same event. When Alexander became king (june 10th, 1917), Zaimis was Prime Minister and Venizelos was not in Athens but in Thessaloniki. Now, in the photograph, Venizelos is present and probably is the new Prime Minister (that is to say after june, 26th 1917). It is very probable that there was two ceremonies: the secret and private one with Constantine and Zaimis and the public and official one with Venizelos Konstantinos (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Commons states that this ceremony occured on August 4, 1917. So there is no contradiction Konstantinos (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I can explain why there was a second (totally public) oath with Venizelos. It is because of article 49 of the Greek Constitution which stated: "The king is major at the age of eighteen years old. Before getting on the throne, he lends, in the presence of ministers, Saint-Synod, deputies present in the capital and other higher authorities, the oath contained in article 43. The king summons the House of Deputies in the Two months at the latest, and lends the desired oath in its breast." (sorry for the translation, you can find the French version here). Konstantinos (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction (now explained) 

message: I don't know if it's worth mentioning (or where it would go), as they were both born after Alexander's death, but it could be noted that Alexander was both the second cousin once removed of Queen Elizabeth II and the first cousin of her husband Prince Philip. It might increase the subject's relevance to a current reader. MisfitToys (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: He is also uncle of the King of Romania, granduncle of the King of Spain, grandfather of the Crown Prince of Yugoslavia, etc. That sounds far more relevant than a second cousin once removed or a first cousin, doesn't it? Surtsicna (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: However, those figures aren't as internationally well-known (and the Romanian and Yugoslav monarchies were abolished decades ago); Elizabeth is easily one of the two or three best-known women in the world. I'll add that I wouldn't have raised the subject of mentioning Elizabeth were it not for the fact that both she and her husband are related to Alexander. (And a first cousin would be just as relevant as a granduncle, and perhaps a grandfather.) MisfitToys (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that being a sole grandchild is as relevant as being one of more than 30 first cousins. My point is that Alexander's relationship to Elizabeth and Philip is trivial and to mention it, without mentioning former and present heads of state to whom he is more closely related, would be pure anglocentrism. I doubt any biographer of his mentions him as a second cousin once removed of Elizabeth or as a first cousin of Philip. Surtsicna (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to current British royal family