Talk:Principality

message: I agree that the line "A lunchtime conversational topic, which requires research and confirmation by a Lizbrarian." seems not to be in the spirit of "Encyclopedic Content", or at the very least needs a citation, but I'm still new and am too chicken to just edit it myself. NipokNek 18:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If we are taking a vote... 

message: Hello Gerald. I see that you have avoided all mention of what I consider and what the UK and USA governments consider to be a load of rubbish, namely the claims that a sunken Royal Navy barge on Rough Sands is or ever could be a "principality". There is so much working against this absurd idea. Roy Bates got the idea in a pub. He has no legal authority and most of the time there is but a lone caretaker sitting on the superstructure of the barge. The UK has never given up claims to its barge which is still marked by UK Ministry of Defence buoys. The UK claims the sand under and around the barge. The only question is whether Bates gained squatter's rights to the barge itself under English law. That seems to be the consensus. However, that would make his barge subject to eminent domain and other laws if the UK wanted to rid itself of this sunken vessel. What it is not and never has been is a principality. But since you are writing about this topic perhaps you would care to wade in since the "Principality of Sealand" page is also linked to this one for explanation of the word "principality"! MPLX/MH 21:51, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what is to be done with the "Principality of Sealand"? 

message: I have deleted the following text from this article, as it is highly biased, has little relevance to the topic of the article, and seems to have no real purpose other than promoting the personal opinion of MPLX, the person who wrote it. It should be noted that MPLX has peppered Wikipedia with half a dozen other articles that also seem to exist just to promote his strong personal opinion concerning Sealand, and they are all as equally unbalanced, and unsupported by documentation as this contribution is.--Centauri 03:50, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted text 

message: It would go far to disentangle this article if it were rewritten to open with definitions of "principality" drawn from classic authorities, with some direct quotes, and then to build from there, giving instances and examples that illustrate general principles. Profuse additions of favourite principalities might be discouraged except as illustrative examples. Some exceptions to general rules would follow, towards the end. --Wetman 19:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting the opening definition, etc 

message: The current lead suggests (to me) that Wales is a sovereign state ruled by a Prince. While this was once true, Wales is no longer a sovereign state (being part of the United Kingdom), and the Prince of Wales is a title that is not held by the monarch. Could this lead be rephrased to represent this? Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted incorrect sentence from lead and added text in later paragraph to clarify position.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks - it's only been there 21 months!!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. The same anon IP editor added the same information to Wales just prior to the addition here on 13 April 2007], and there were related changes, which could do with being checked to make sure no remaining problems persist.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its like sorting out spider webs tracking down all the articles you need tomonitor!  --Snowded TALK 16:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Principality of Wales 

message: I may be overlooking something, but can somebody explain to me why Åland is mentioned in the See also-chapter? I cannot find any reference in the article, nor in Åland and its related pages that this is (or has been) a principality. 12:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some research on Åland, but I didn't find any reliable source anywehere that these islands have been a principality. I removed it from the list.  15:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also tried, but got bound up with other matters, and so didn't complete it. So, I think you did the right thing.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Åland? 

message: Greetings
The Principality of Hutt River has recently celebrated its 45th anniversary and has been established according to international law including the Montevideo Protocols (1933). The principality of Hutt River under sovereign Prince Leonard has a territory of 75klms, o border, population. a government and the ability to interact with other governments. Principality is an ancient and ongoing form of government - as Plato observed in 'The Republic', a benevolent monarchy is the best form of government.
TKS  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.233 (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Principality of Hutt River 

message: See Talk:Grand_Duchy_of_Moscow#Requested_move_18_January_2021. Has any scholar ever defined the difference? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sometimes principality is a synonym to duchy 

message: This is probably going to sound goofy, but it's a genuine question. I hope I can word it decently.
I've always wondered why a monarch who has no one ranking above him stops at "prince" or "grand duke" without continuing right on to "king." If it's a matter of the size of the realm, history includes many tiny kingdoms, most of which have more recently been incorporated into larger states. Heck... I've been told that some of the kingdoms mentioned in the Old Testament were comparable to US counties. Anyhow... my question is Why, a thousand years ago, did the Grand Duke of Fenwick NOT say "I'm the top! I'm King of Fenwick!"? What kept the egos in check? PurpleChez (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I read, it depends on wheather it is recognised by neighbouring nations. Like, I guess, a King isn't going to accept the Prince of some small princedom declaring theirself equal to him. Read this if you want a clearer answer:https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/52754/why-did-the-person-in-charge-of-a-principality-not-just-declare-themself-king Topeka-GuyWiki (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not a kingdom?