Talk:List of heads of former ruling families

Separated list

Any comments on the new list, recently separated from Pretender? I've added "omitted entries" below; please delete them when they are added to the main list. Nightw 06:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Entries omitted

These entries were previously maintained at Pretender, but I haven't added them for various reasons. Please discuss before adding to the new list, as many of them do not fulfill the relative criteria stated in the lead, or are not appropriately sourced.

Country		Pretender	Born	Pretender since	Link to past monarchy	House	Heir	Born
	Mann	Simon Egerton Scrope	1934		descendant of William le Scrope (King from 1392 to 1399)	Scrope	Harry Scrope	1974
	Spain (Carlist)	Carlos, Duke of Parma	1970	2010	son of Carlos Hugo, Count of Montemolin and grandson of Xavier, Duke of Parma, declared regent by Alfonso Carlos of Bourbon, Duke of San Jaime	Bourbon	Prince Jaime, Count of Bardi	1972
		Sixtus, Duke of Aranjuez	1940	1979	son of Xavier, Duke of Parma, declared regent by Alfonso Carlos of Bourbon, Duke of San Jaime
	Poland	Maria Emanuel, Margrave of Meissen	1926	1968	great-great-great-nephew of Frederick Augustus I (Duke from 1807 to 1815)	Wettin	Prince Albert	1934
	Benin	Erediauwa	1953	1978	Great-grandson of Oba Overami (Oba from 1888 to 1897)	Oba	?
	Lebanon	Osman I	?	1995	descendant of Bashir Shihab II (Emir from 1788 to 1840)	Shihab	?	?
	Singapore	Tengku Sri Indra	?	1996	descendant of Ali of Johor (Sultan from 1835–1877)	?	—
	Syria	Prince Ra'ad bin Zeid	1936	1970	half-nephew of Faysal I (King from 1920 to 1920)	Hāshim	Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein	1964

Any omissions not listed above can be added to the table. Nightw 06:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Carlist and Jacobite claimants should be included these are well known historical claims. - dwc lr (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Jacobite claims added, with the exception of France, as I don't think it was a separate crown. Will add Carlist claims shortly, once I've figured out appropriate explanations for the complexities. Nightw 15:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I am certain that Evan Vaughn Anwyl should be listed as pretender to the throne of Prince of Wales/King of the Welsh, and Prince of Gwynedd. I think his name should be properly listed as Evan Vaughn Anwyl though.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Nightw 14:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we should add Erediauwa as pretender of Benin on the list. He looks like the legitamete heir to the throne. Spongie555 (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure he's a pretender, he might actually belong on the list of current constituent monarchs, since there are lots of obas that are officially recognised in Nigeria. Nightw 09:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"Entries in this list are governed with respect to their relevant succession laws."

The Jacobite claimants must go. If, as the first paragraph says, the entries in this list are governed with respect to their relevant succession laws, there can be no valid pretenders to the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland.

The historic monarchies of England, Scotland and Ireland were purely statutory institutions, as both of the post-union British monarchies have been. For that reason, they occupy a unique position in the modern history of world governments in general, and of modern monarchy in particular. No one has a valid claim to the British or its successor thones except as modern British and Irish statute provide.

The English and Irish succession laws were changed in 1701, at which time all Roman Catholics and all persons married to a Roman Catholic were disqualified from accession. (Catholics were already excluded from any role in the Irish government, itself actually an English invention.) The Scottish government passed no such law, but exclusion of Roman Catholics became the succession law in Scotland when that kingdom merged with England in 1707 as the Kingdom of Great Britain. This created the first British monarchy. The second was created on 1 January 1801, when the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland were merged into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

It is inappropriate to list Elizabeth II as pretender to the throne of Ireland, since she is the reigning monarch who serves the northeastern portion of that country, which is still in union with Great Britain. Thus, she is actually reigning as Queen of Ireland, in the reduced aspect of that historic realm. To hold otherwise is to impose an Irish Nationalist perspective upon the politics of Northern Ireland, contrary to the will of the Unionist majority in that part of the Island.

That is, to call the de facto reigning monarch of Ireland a pretender to the Irish throne is to claim implicitly that Northern Ireland is not, or/and has no right to be, part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That would be a very NPOV thing to do with this article.

Alternatively, if you are going to list the Jacobite claimants, despite the English, Irish, and British succession laws that disqualify them and all other Roman Catholics; then you must include in your list all of the people who maintain traditional family claims to the historic thrones of England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and historic sovereign subdivisions of the British Isles - as modern descendants of the O'Neills, McLoughlins, O'Briens, O'Connors, Mackays, MacDonalds, and so on; all according to the succession laws in place at the time of the deposition or dethronement of their ancestors. But be mindful that, if you do that, you will potentially have a list of a million pretenders to the thrones of Tara, Meath, Brefni, Connacht, Munster, Leinster, Man and the Isles, Alba, Northumbria, Wessex, etc.

But you include the Jacobite claimants on this list despite their statutory disqualification, you either need to include EVERYBODY who might have a valid "pretendership" - OR - you need to change the introductory paragraph, since this list clearly is NOT governed "with respect to their various succession laws".
24.4.56.198 (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Jacobite claim is based on the inalienable hereditary right of the Stuart dynasty. They contend that the overthrow of James was illegal, and do not recognise the Acts of Union. Therefore, in their view, all British and Irish succession laws since then are irrelevant, including the disqualification of Roman Catholics. This is no different to any other situation where an abolition or deposition of a monarchy or its reigning dynasty has resulted from a change in the law. That is what "pretenderships" are—where the law in effect is disputed or not recognised by a particular group.

If you'd read the entry correctly, you'd note that Elizabeth II is listed as the pretender for the throne of the Irish Free State (1922–1937), which did not include the North. She is listed there as she is for all other (now abolished) thrones that were established as being legally distinct from the British one (e.g. Malta, India, etcetera).

Furthermore, we do list "all of the people who maintain traditional family claims to the historic thrones", or at least all of the claims on which we have information available. We list the Anwyl dynasty and the Irish chiefs (which you attempted to remove, despite your argument that they should be added). The latter we keep under "Others" in paragraph (rather than listed forms) because their legitimacy is often disputed. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, which we should try to maintain when it comes to controversial issues. Nightw 07:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

Why is Elizabeth II listed as "pretender" to a number of countries? To be a pretender, you have to actually claim the crown in question; the British Crown makes no claim to the crown of India or Guyana or any of those countries . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.4.208.192 (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read the introduction to the article, which states what is a "pretender". This includes claims made on a person's behalf by others. Nightw 13:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The supposed 'claims' to India and Guyana seem to have been removed (correctly in my view - nobody seriously advances these claims, least of all the British Crown, which granted them independence in the first place). But there are still three pretenders to the crown of Jerusalem. While the government of Jerusalem is, of course, hotly contended, I don't think anyone is advancing any of these particular claimants. Even the reference provided admits, "I daresay that few if any were aware that the British sovereigns could have exerted a tenuous and technical claim over the region already." And since the British Crown voluntarily gave up the League of Nations mandate in Palestine in 1948, I think the claim is extinct. GoldenRing (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

-Yes; but the British Sovereigns never styled themselves 'King of Jerusalem' during the period when the British mandate of Palestine was in existence.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That's rather the point; nobody has advanced this claim in many hundreds of years, even when Britain did legitimately govern Palestine. GoldenRing (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the kings of Spain nominally claim the kingship of Jerusalem; why isn't that listed? —Tamfang (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Kandy and Jaffna

Who is MohanBabu Rajah ? no internet search result gives any information about him. the Jaffna Fellow has a Defunt Website but looks dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.78.61 (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Idris al-Senussi

Under the royal orders cited in Art. 45 of the former kingdom's constitution, succession was hereditary within the House of Senussi. The heir was to be the eldest son. In the case that there were no sons, the heir would be appointed by the king. Since this man was never appointed by Idris, nor by any of his successors, then he can not possess a legitimate claim to the throne. And it is apparent from other discussions that his claim is disputed by the royal family.

Whether he claims a throne or not is his business, but whether he possesses a legitimate claim under an established law of succession is another thing entirely. This list's criteria for inclusion requires a legitimate link.

Check the entry for Iraq where I've mentioned Sharif Ali bin al-Hussein, another "false pretender", in a footnote, separate from the main list. It would be prudent to do the same with Idris. We can't go listing every prince with an ambition, no matter how prominent. Nightw 16:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a problem. Who exactly is going to decide if someone’s claim is ‘legitimate’ or not? If I think Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia has no right to claim the headship of the Imperial House because his mother was not of ‘equal rank’ am I to put him as a footnote, or if I take a particular POV in Brazil, Lippe, France, Italy, Two Scillies am I able to relegate one claimant to a footnote based on my own, or an author’s POV of who has a ‘legitimate claim’ and who does not. Personally I think this is an awful idea, and as far as NPOV goes if there are two claimants who undisputedly belong to same family they should be listed and then people can read the claims and make their own mind up if they like, I don’t think it is the job of Wikipedia Editors to make decisions for them based on our own POV’s. - dwc lr (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's reflected quite plainly in reliable sources. See, for example, the source that you've cited. Whereas on the last page, Muhammad bin Hasan is clearly presented in the same way as his predecessors, as "Crown Prince and Head of the Royal House of Libya", Idris bin Abdullah, on the other hand, is listed, on page 3, as a descendant of the Senussi.

And again in Iraq's entry, from the same source, Prince Ra'ad is listed in the same fashion as his predecessors, presented as the "Head of the Royal House of Iraq since the death of his father", while Sharif Ali isn't mentioned.

In the other major source used on this list, it's presented in the same way; see here and here. Nightw 17:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The author of Royal Ark is entitled to his opinion, the same goes for other sites such as the Online Gotha that are used on this page. The authors are entitled to an opinion, they are not restricted by rules such as presenting a NPOV. I agree that Muhammad al-Senussi has a better claim, but there is no doubt that Idris al-Senussi is also a claimant, other sources could be used instead of Royal Ark. If we apply WP:RS to the letter I think Royal Ark, Online Gotha etc would not be permitted as sources anyway as they are self published websites, I think they are very reliable but the guidelines would disagree with me I think. - dwc lr (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable genealogical sources linking this guy to the crown of Libya? The issue is that your definition ("claimants belonging to same family") isn't verifiable. As the list stands, we have criteria that is verifiable by primary sources (i.e., the succession laws) backed up by secondary sources (i.e., those in the references section). This other guy is clearly refuted by reliable sources, and therefore we can't treat his claim equally. If we do, then we also must list all other random claimants to thrones, like this "Emperor of China", and every idiot that claims to be the "Sultan of Sulu". Nightw 03:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Succession laws are open to interpretation hence the disputes in Brazil, Russia etc. Unless there is some dispute that Idris al-Senussi does not belong to the Senussi family I don’t see the justification for removing him, there are plenty of sources for him as a claimant. I hardly think an undisputed member of the Senussi family is comparable to some random people on the internet who I doubt have been invited on CNN and given interviews to media outlets. - dwc lr (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Claimants that "belong to the same family" and "have been interviewed on CNN" is not an appropriate definition of a pretender. He may be in the same family, but he's not in the line of succession, since that was based on primogeniture. He's not even descended from the king, in fact the relation is very distant. Unless you can find a reliable genealogical source that puts his claim on par with that of the crown prince, then we simply cannot display it that way here. We're not here to promote something that isn't recognised by reliable sources. Nightw 09:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I really don’t see why you seem so intent on removing this guy. Idris al-Senussi is a pretender, that is a verifiable fact from reliable sources.[1][2] He has been treated as a serious claimant by reliable sources a lot recently because of the trouble in his homeland. Muhammad al-Senussi is not descended from a king either, Idris and Muhammad are both great nephews of king Idris, although Idris is technically only a step-great nephew. I think I would struggle to find a genealogical source to say Muhammad al-Senussi is heir let alone one for Idris al-Senussi, because as I said before I doubt Royal Ark meets WP:RS criteria. As far as I’m concerned there is no justification in promoting one candidate over another in Libya, anymore than there is in one of the other disputes. I really think you should let this drop. - dwc lr (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Won't happen. His name shouldn't be removed, but it can't be part of the main list either. We can't show his claim on the same level as that of Muhammad's, since that wouldn't be reflective of the sources.

Both Buyers and Soszynski are widely regarded as credible sources for royal genealogy. And note that both of those articles you provided also mention Muhammad, and claim that a British court has ruled that this guy is, indeed, not the heir, but that Muhammad is.

So, he can either get mentioned in a footnote, or in plain prose in a separate section. I don't care how notorious he is, it doesn't mean he automatically bypasses the inclusion criteria. If this isn't going to go anywhere, I can bring the issue to a relevant community review noticeboard. Nightw 17:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The UK Court did not rule that he was not the heir. As he says in the interview he lost a blackmail case it had nothing to do with succession to the Libyan throne. I would find it highly odd that a UK court would rule on the succession to the throne of a foreign country which it has no jurisdiction over. No matter how widely regarded Buyers and Soszynski are I doubt they count in terms in WP:RS unless they have their work published somewhere other than their own websites. Theroff’s Online Gotha thinks Grand Duchess Maria is Russian heir, Prince Armin the Lippe heir, Prince Victor Emmanuelle Italian heir. Do you want to remove the other claimants in those cases? With all due respect you don’t own this article, for you to label him a “false pretender” is solely your POV not a NPOV, so by all means get more people involved in this discussion. - dwc lr (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Nightw 05:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The noticeboard discussion was archived here. With respect, I'll either act upon the suggestions made (moving the disputed claimant out of the list) or wait for an objection, whereupon I shall relist the thread for further imput. Nightw 06:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Idris al-Senussi’s claims are not entirely illegitimate like ‘Emperor Norton’, he is without doubt a member of the Senussi family. I take on board the second response, however Idris al-Senussi is a high profile claimant, has received significant coverage, I don’t think its undue weight to list him. How is it going to be determined when it’s undue weight to list a claimant because there are various disputes within families? - dwc lr (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

He may not be entirely illegitimate but his legitimacy is heavily disputed by credible sources. Therefore, in line with the inclusion criteria and policy ("all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately"), a person whose claim is commonly regarded by RS as false should be included somewhere outside the actual list, so as not to display it on equal footing with widely-accepted claims. Night w2 (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the call? You and I have discussed this to death. Am I relisting it or can I go ahead and remove the entry? Night w2 (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You can relist it. - dwc lr (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Nightw 10:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Philippe Boiry

I tried to add the link of Philippe Boiry to his redlink name under Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia(which is under the Americas boxes) but someone reverted it saying it needed to be discussed. I dont know what there is to discusse since i was just linking his name to his article. Spongie555 (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies. I was under the presumption that you were changing the pretender himself — I didn't realise they were the same person. I've reverted my actions. Thanks for the catch on the name. Nightw 06:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Bosnia

Also i wanted to ask if we know who the current Bosnian pretender is and if we should add him? I found the royals family website [3] but i dont speak bosnian so i cant read it. According to few english things i read they have a Duke(pretender) but i couldnt get a name. I dont know if anyone can help with this. Spongie555 (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the website cites the name Stjepana Berislavića as the pretender (see House of Berislavić). To what exactly, I'm not sure, since the last time Bosnia was independent was during the 15th century... I'm not familiar with any line of Bosnian royal family apart from that. Nightw 11:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the Bosnian royal family is doing what the georgia royal family is doing by trying to revive a old royal house and make a pretender. There is also the other royal house of Bosnia ,House of Kotromanić. Spongie555 (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The male line of the House of Kotromanić went extinct a half a millennium ago, though I suppose one could argue that, since Bosnia under the House of Kotromanić was a vassal of the Kingdom of Hungary, Hungarian practices would likely be applicable, and Hungary embraced a rule of succession that certainly allowed women to inherit the throne under some circumstances. If one can construct an argument that women could inherit the Bosnian throne, then the descendants of Catherine of Bosnia, Countess of Cilli could have a claim. If cognatic, then the pretender to a Kotromanić arising from Catherine would, I believe, presently be Hubertus Christoph Joachim Friedrich von der Osten, the second son of Princess Felicitas of Prussia; if agnatic-cognatic, then, if I'm not mistaken, that pretender would be Karl von Habsburg. That's a lot of speculation, though, and there is not a source in the world that I'm aware of that makes any claim that those individuals have any such pretense.—MNTRT2009 (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Korea

Why Yi Chung is enlisted as the pretender of the Korean Empire? He is only current householder of Prince regent Heungseon, but he can't be pretender of Korea. Please see this. Emperor Gojong is adopted as son of Grand Royal Dowager Queen Sinjeong and King Ikjong, who were parent of Heonjong of Joseon. And Prince regent Heungseon is a great-grandson of Prince Eunsin, who is younger brother of Jeongjo of Joseon (English source is here.) So legally Prince regent Heungseon and Gojong did not have lineal relation. Yi ChungYi Chung's father is adopted son of Yi Jaemyeon, who is older brother of Gojong(in blood relation (added 14:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC))), so he can't have lineal relation with Gojong. --Mintz0223 (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that Yi Chung doesn't descend from Gojong? [4] Nightw 13:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. He is one of descendant of Gojong in the sense of blood relation. But legally Yi Chung is not a descendant of Gojong, because Gojong's ancestry is officially changed since he became the king of Joseon. because Gojong's legal father is Ikjong, not Heungseon. But Yi chung's father was adopted by Yi Jaemyeon, Heungseon's first son, so Yi chung is a member of Heungseon's family. --Mintz0223 (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

But one can still inherit the throne even if adopted into another line. Assuming that Gu (or Hoeun) didn't have any male heirs, the line then passes to another branch.

• "According to Invest Korea: If one were to apply the male primogeniture rule, the genealogical male heir of Emperor Gojong would then be Yi Chung (born 1936)."

I don't really know much about the Joseon genealogy, so I'm at a loss, but there are sources stating that he would be the heir, and nothing directly disputing this claim has been provided. I'm hoping you can find something a bit more solid... Nightw 17:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yi Chung can't be a heir even though we consider male primogeniture rule. His father Yi wu is second son of Prince Imperial Ui. His eldest son is Kenichi Momoyama, whose Korean name is Yi Geon. Thus genealogical male heir should be Momoyama's eldest son Tadahisa. (by ko:모모야마 겐이치#자녀) And this Korean news ([5]) says that "의왕의 첫째 아들 이건 황손은 일제의 압력에 의해서지만 일본 여인과 결혼해 일본인에 동화된 삶을 살았다. 둘째 아들 이우 황손은 유일하게 일본황실의 강압을 뿌리치고 조선 여인과 결혼했다. 이우 황손은 대원군의 장손인 계동궁 이준 황손(일반 이름 준용)이 아들이 없어 계동에 양자로 가기도 했으니 고종황제 집안과 고종황제의 형 집안을 통틀어 대를 잇는 자손이 된다. 그래서 황실은 둘째 아들인 이우 황손을 적통자로 생각했다" (Momoyama Kenichi, the eldest son of Prince Ui, married with Japanese woman and assimilated in Japanese society due to government of Japan's pressure. Yi Wu, second son of Prince Ui, overcame Japan's pressure and married with Korean woman. Prince Yi Wu was adopted by Yi Junyong, grandson of Prince Regent Heungseon, so he is the householder of Gojong's descendants and those of Gojong's older brother. Thus imperial family considered Yi wu as genealogical heir.)

Thus, the only reason why we can consider Yi Chung as pretender of Korean Empire is Korean imperial household's preference. I think at least Yi Chung's reason to pretending should be fixed. He is genealogical heir if we only consider perfect-Korean lineage. Momoyama Tadahisa is genealogical heir if we consider Korean-Japanese lineage as well. --Mintz0223 (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, can you draft a wording we can replace the current with? Try and keep it simple as possible? Nightw 18:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Prince Yi Seok is the Korean pretender, according to BBC, Washington Post, and New York Times (See here and here). The local government uses him to promote tourism, so he has an official pretender gig. As for the three royals who are currently listed, there's an English-language article about them in JoongAng, but nothing internationally. In short, they are obscure figures getting WP:UNDUE attention here, little more than Wikipedia fabrications. Kauffner (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No objections to adding Seok. Perhaps you can propose an appropriate footnote like the other three have. On the others, Won is the man still reported as the heir in geneaological sources. I will have a look around for more sources on the other two. Nightw 13:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is the JoongAng story. This appears to be the only RS coverage "Empress" Yi Hae-won has gotten in English on the Internet. And that is more coverage than Yi Chung has. Dong-A has an obit for Yi Ku that mentions Yi Won.[6] He is identified as, "General Manager of Hyundai Home Shopping". There is no suggestion that he is a pretender. Kauffner (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yi Won was chief mourner at the funeral of the last uncontested head of the Imperial Family. On what basis does Yi Seok claim he is the legitimate heir? Yi Won was selected by the Joseon Lee Royal Family Members Foundation. - dwc lr (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, see sources added above for Chung. Nightw 21:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Invest Korea says Yi Chung is, "not actively claimed the right to be the head of the Yi family". Of course, it is not necessary to "actively" do anything to be a pretender. The issue is rather how he is commonly presented. As he is presented in this article, he is not a pretender. The man just wants to live his private life and not be bothered by media and royalists. We should respect that. Yi Won and Yi Seok are the pretenders who get almost all the attention. Creating a long list of people who shouted, "Yeah, I'm Spartacus too!" just leaves the reader confused. Kauffner (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Too bad. Wikipedia is not censored, as I'm sure you know. Has he formally renounced all claims to the throne? If so, and if it is indeed true that Yi Seok is the next in line after Yi Chung (and you'll need to substantiate that), then we can switch Chung for Seok and reduce information about Chung to a footnote. Nightw 11:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not Yi Seok's PR agent. If people don't want him in, fine with me. But I hope we can at least can rid of Yi Hae-won. She was never covered in the international media and has got almost no coverage in the Korean press in the last five years. There is no logic to her claim under the succession rules. Even in the stories about her, she's the joke pretender. Kauffner (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well going on what you've provided, he should be added as a claimant. It's whether he replaces Chung that is not so certain. As for Hae-won, [7][8][9][10][11], even if she's the "joke pretender" her claims appear to be quite prominent and she has a legitimate connection to former rulers. Nightw 07:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Almost all of that coverage is from when she "coronated," back in 2006. Yes, she really is the joke pretender. Here is Buyers: "“Enthroned” as “Empress of South Korea” (sic) at a Seoul hotel on 29th September 2006, in a copic-opera ceremony conducted by members of the so-called “Imperial Family Association of Daehanjeguk” (who are unconnected with the Yi Imperial line)." Anyway, I created a footnote for Hae-won and Seok. I think that's all the prominence they deserve. Chung would be a pretender only if he was to challenge the legitimacy of Won's adoption, so he is even more deserving of footnote status. Kauffner (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm lost. First you were arguing that Seok was the pretender, and that the others' claims (including Won's) were a "Wikipedia fabrication". I responded that adding Seok was fine. Now you want to add him as a footnote on Chung's entry, is that correct? The full quote from Invest Korea reads: "Even though Yi Chung is a direct descendent of his grandfather Uichin-wang, he has not actively claimed the right to be the head of the Yi family, leaving the dispute to exist between his two relatives -- Yi Won and Yi Hae-Won." Haewon's claim is also mentioned by The People's Daily, and she's definitely a pretender. But she can be kept as a footnote. Nightw 12:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to consider Yi Chung to be a pretender. The succession rules are quite complex, so Invest Korea is radically oversimplifying when it refers to a "male primogeniture rule." Yi Won was adopted by Yi Ku to make him successor. If wasn't for the adoption, Yi Chung would have been the heir. That is his only relevance to the pretender/succession issue. He doesn't seem to be making any claims, and no one is advocating on his behalf. Kauffner (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

As it says in his article, the legality of the adoption under family law is disputed, and it was definitely illegal under Korean law. Nightw 17:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess Yi Seok is controversial. But there is no source for the claim that Yi Chung is a pretender. Invest Korea says quite the opposite. Kauffner (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it states that he does not make the claim himself. That does not rule out claims made on his behalf. Since Won's adoption is illegal (or at least contested), it would be inappropriate to list him alone. And Chung is legally the heir under succession laws. Nightw 00:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You are presenting a dispute between Won and Chung that doesn't exist in the real world. In law, there is the concept of "standing," under which only someone with a direct interest in the outcome may challenge a decision. Of course, this isn't an actual legal issue unless Korea restores the monarchy. But in this analogy, the people with a direct interest in the adoption issue are Yi Chung and the Yi family association, neither of whom have challenged it. If you want to play succession lawyer and ignore political reality, there are two Japanese with plausible claims as well. To justify keeping Yi Chung on the list there needs to be sources that present him as a pretender. So I don't think he belongs on this list at all. You proposed putting him in footnote above, and that's acceptable to me. Kauffner (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I said I would accept putting him as a footnote on Yi Seok's entry. I also said that Won's claim (which you originally called a "Wikipedia fabrication") cannot sit there alone. Since our collaboration doesn't seem to be working on the talk page and you persist in making changes to the article unilaterally, I respond in kind. Nightw 13:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yi Seok and Yi Won

I will add Yi Seok as the Pretender of Korea as he is listed an author in Seoul for Economist states "Had the 20th century, with its colonialism, war and division of Korea, not happened, Yi Seok may well have been King of Korea." In addition, he is listed as the "current heir" by Knowledge Nuts, and he is the named successor. This isn't debated in Korea. Theoneyihistorian (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

None of those articles say that Yi Seok is the current head of the House of Yi. In fact, the the Joongang Daily article says that the Jeonju Lee Royal Family Members Foundation recognizes Yi Won. I haven't seen an explanation of exactly who this group is. But its claim to represent the House seems to be widely accepted. Yi Won is president and performs the "five rites" as head of the House, according to this article. It's for the House to select its head and to judge the legitimacy of any adoption. If we don't recognize the foundation's authority and go by primogeniture, the head of the House is Yi Cheong. Yi Seok gets media attention because he has a dramatic life story and a hit song. That's not the same as a valid claim to be the head of the house. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The Korean Government published on their website, Korea.net, that Yi Seok was the only recognized pretender in Korea.. The Korean people widely recognize Yi Seok as the Hwangson. He was also featured on numerous television talk shows across Korea cable as the officially recognized last prince of Korea including Park Jong Jin's Kwaedonanma where he was specifically identified as the Crown Prince of Korea. This is acknowledged in Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoneyihistorian (talk • contribs) 22:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you read the articles that you link to? This one says "Currently Yi Seok is one of two pretenders to the throne." Nine Zulu queens (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It said he is the only on in Korea. Here is a more recent article. More recently he was, again, called the Last Crown Prince by Daum (while being visited by the US Ambassador).Theoneyihistorian (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Are there any further objections?Theoneyihistorian (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I will proceed to revert. Thank you for forcing me to add further clarification and sources as it helps everyone on Wikipedia when we have verified sourced information! Theoneyihistorian (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The head of a house doesn't have to live anywhere in particular. No, Yi Seok was never a crown prince. Isn't that part in quotation marks? I assume it is a soi disant title. Korea.net is a tourist information site. The article is not any sort of official recognition by the Korean government. All the same, I assume the author knows what she is talking about. If she says there are two pretenders, that implies Yi Seok and Yi Won both have pretender status. IMO, we should list them both. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense and I'm ok with that. I'll update. Theoneyihistorian (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Jaffna

This claim looks dubious. I see User:Jehanbastians added a note effectively saying this, and I note the only reference is a self published website which I don't think is appropriate to use in support of this claim. Unless there is a more reliable source (such as genealogical book or website like Royal Ark) documenting this claim I think it should be removed. - dwc lr (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If we're using genealogical sources as the criteria, there are several names that need to be looked at:

• Yves Ñzînga Mvêmba, of Kongo
• Idris bin Abdullah, of Libya (but you know about that one)
• Remigius Kanagarajah, of Jaffna
• Tonino, of Tavolara
• Joinville Pomare, of Tahiti
• Léopold Pomare, of Tahiti
• Tauatomo Mairau, of Tahiti

Perhaps we should set some sort of WP:V criteria? Nightw 18:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about someone like Idris al-Senussi as I know he is found in genealogies of the Senussi family. My primary concern is about people who claim to belong to a royal family but for whom there is no reliable source to verify they are even related to the former ruling families. I would exclude anyone that is not listed in a reliable source, or whom there is doubt about if they even descend or belong to the family they claim they do. - dwc lr (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Little problem with Jacobite "abolition" dates

The Jacobites most emphatically were not abolished by the Acts of Union. The Jacobites can't be "abolished" by any law because they have always been illegal claimants to the English/British Crown. To be exact, the Jacobites are Roman Catholics who claim to be the true successors to the now-Reformed throne. The Jacobites, apparently operating on the belief that only we as Roman Catholics can hold the Divine Right of Kings in its fullness, are a branch that diverged from mainstream British succession long before the Acts of Union. I strongly suggest that, in the Abolition Column, the Jacobite entries should say "Diverged" followed by the year in which they, as explained, were not so much abolished as diverged mainstream royal succession. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

But the thrones that they claim have been abolished in reality. It's not the line of succession that's being abolished, it's the actual throne. "Diverged" would imply that they claimed another set of crowns different to the mainstream crowns. Nightw 06:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

A. The Jacobites, however, were already illegal claimants from the start, not from the Acts of Union, which renders the "abolition" date misleading either way.

B. Except it isn't. Not only is the United Kingdom of Great Britain still a monarchy in unification, but here's the laundry list of British monarchs with continued English numerals:

William IV

Edward VII

Edward VIII

Elizabeth II (The current monarch)

Besides, I do believe the Ph. D. Historian David Starkey wrote a document called On the Continuity of the English-British State (maybe I have the title slightly wrong, but it's close to that), which explains how unified Britain is a continuation of the earlier State of England founded by William of Normandy. Some Scottish state offices may have continued to exist, but they continued without expanding jurisdiction to include England, whereas only English state offices expanded so as to remain national rather than provincial offices. By extension, the Crown is just another state office.

C. Nevertheless, let's emphasize Point A. The other entries on the list (or rather their predecessors) became pretenders only upon abolition, whereas the Jacobites were pretenders who created an alternative succession of a certainly-then-extant throne. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Having a change in royal lines doesn't mean the previous lines are not pretenders. The Bourbons were certainly pretenders during Napoleon's reign, for example. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I never said the Jacobites weren't pretenders. What I said was that an "abolition date" was misleading when there was no act making them pretenders rather than actual monarchs. Rather, they were pretenders from the very beginning. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It is the Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland that were abolished, not the Jacobites. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Tell that to continued English numerals on regnal names. The thrones of Scotland and Ireland are certainly abolished. Besides, the Jacobites were pretenders even before the Acts of Union, rendering an "abolition date" in their table row to be misleading. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the rule on British monarchs' regnal names is that whichever would have been the highest number if the kingdoms had stayed separate is the number they take. It's just so happened that the Scottish number, as of yet, has never been the higher one. So, for example, the next British monarch called James would be James VIII rather than James III, unless Scotland becomes independent in 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.27.154 (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

That rule was adopted (perhaps as a retroactive rationalization) during the reign of Edward VII; until then it had never been an issue. From 1603 to 1707 dual numbering was used. Neither England nor Scotland had had a previous Anne, George or Victoria; and by chance each had had three Williams before 1707. —Tamfang (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Surely the simple solution is for the throne of the United Kingdom to be listed separately from the English, Scottish and thrones, with "N/A" under the abolition date? Jacobites still claim the right to the throne of the United Kingdom. Smurfmeister (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph under the table explaining, briefly, the situation regarding the British Crown and how the Jacobite claim relates to it. GoldenRing (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Items on list disputed template

At the top of the page, there is a template saying "The inclusion of certain items in this list is currently being disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the article's talk page." Is this template still valid? If so, what are the disputes exactly. If not, let's get rid of it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on the date put on there, it seems to be in regards to the talk here on Idris al-Senussi. Can't see what else it may be, so it'll be removed for now. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Relisted: How best to present disputed information. Perhaps both of you could review the opinions given there, and offer each of your own? Nightw 11:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

OK from the discussions on here, I wasn't aware it was still being talked about above but on another area as posted in that link. It just seemed it was an old template forgotten to be removed & didn't specify to what the topic was directed at on here specifically. Thanks for clearing up the matter. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The template appears to be pretty outdated. I think it's time to remove it. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

German Pretenders

There are a lot more German pretenders that could be added to the list. currently it only lists the head of states of the German Empire, however there are still a lot more mediated houses, who still have living representatives. is there any reason for not including these? 71.194.44.209 (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Any particular houses that you feel should be added? Those listed are the ones we have sources for... if there are others with pretenders I need sources in order to add them... Nightw 15:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of them, and not all of them even have Wikipedia articles. At the time of the abolition of the HRE and the German Mediatization there 200 states. Of course many of these no longer have heirs, and some of them were Prince-Bishoprics. Of course for the Prince-Bishop there will probably be a current bishop that could be said to claim the title. So what I am wondering, is should which should we include, and should we add another table? Right now we have only members states of the German Empire, and some Napoleonic states. We could include a list of bishops, or just add a note. Also, we could have a separate table for mediatized houses. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Can you provide a source that we can work with? Nightw 05:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

sure to what? to adding bishops or mediated houses? Tinynanorobots (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to bishops. Just to anyone considered a pretender to a former monarchy or royal household; i.e., whatever you can provide sources for. Nightw 08:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

What about Albert, 12th Prince of Thurn and Taxis and Prince Alexander von Fürstenberg ? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Deposed monarchs, not pretenders

Tsar Simeon, King Michael and King Constantine are deposed monarchs and not pretenders. I do think they do belong on this list, so should it be moved to list of current pretenders and deposed monarchs. Tinynanorobots (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read the lead and the sources cited therein. The deposed monarch does not have to make the claim himself. Nightw 08:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Websites: Royal Ark and Genealogical Gleanings

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Self-published royalty websites for thread about these two websites which are used extensively in this article.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

China

The theory that Emperor Puyi appointed Prince Yuyan his heir, thus creating a Yuyan-Hengzhen pretender line, is way out fringe stuff. It comes from a travel adventure book called The Empty Throne by Tony Scotland. Royal Ark must have picked it up from there, because it isn't in any source more mainstream than that. As far the mainstream media was concerned, Prince Pujie was Puyi's heir. He was described as the "emperor-in-waiting", "last Manchu", etc. As Pujie died in 1994, this would make Jin Youzhi, Pujie's half brother, the current pretender.[12] I should add that there is no logic to listing China and Manchukou separately and assigning them two different pretenders. Whoever is Puyi's heir is obviously pretender to both thrones. Kauffner (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Buyers does indeed appear to cite Scotland as you suggest. According to Buyers, Jin Youzhi would have succeeded according to Art. 5 of the Law Governing Succession to the Imperial Throne (1937). He concedes that no official papers have been found proving Puyi's adoption of Yuyan, but states that "several individuals continue to testify in its favour". Articles on zhwiki make the same claims as ours did before your recent changes, although no sources are cited there either. Since this is an historical claim that appears, according to Buyers, to still be active, it would be necessary to represent both items in the list. In addition, I would stress that it is necessary to include both the Chinese throne and the Manchurian throne separately, since they are legally separate. Nightw 20:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be something in a real source to justify adding a pretender to the list? Pu Jie was presented as Pu Yi's heir in dozens of news articles, especially in his obituaries. Yu Yan gets a one-line mention in a single Washington Post story (Feb 27, 1989). There were no obits when he died. Kauffner (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What do Chinese sources say? - dwc lr (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yuyan wrote a memoir that was published in Chinese: I Followed Pu Yi for Two Decades (free translation). His Chinese-language bio on Baidu very briefly mentions the "heir to Puyi" issue. Hengzhen is listed as Yuyan's son -- and nothing else. To present him as a pretender is WP:OR. Kauffner (talk) 04:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If I search Hengzhen emperor at Google, I get several SPS that purport Hengzhen to be the pretender, such as this one. I'm not saying that these are reliable sources, but it makes me somewhat wary of the claim that there's nothing more substantial in Chinese—especially since that, if he is indeed Yuyan's eldest son, that would make him the next in line for that particular set of monarchists. Nightw 11:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That site is not what it appears to be. The stuff about Yuyan used to be on Wiki, although I rewrote it. That material, in turn, was adapted from Royal Ark. So we meet our old friends again, and the only real source remains Scotland's book. Take a look at this. This page suggests that what site's owner really cares about is promoting his own genealogy and claims of imperial descent. This is fake monarchism, designed to get our attention and then lead us to something else altogether. There is no noticeable real monarchism or monarchy nostalgia in China. Pretenders exist only in the sense that somebody is Puyi's heir. Kauffner (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at the entry for Iraq, in particular the footnote which details a competing claim which is not widely recognised. Since Buyers (along with a large amount of random web content) purports Hengzhen to be the successor to Yuyan's claim, and that "several individuals continue to testify in its favour", I am abject to removing the claim completely. However, since Yuyan's claim has never been substantiated, it would be best to reduce our representation of it to a footnote similar to the one on Iraq. The entry for China on the list itself would be entirely focused on Jin. Thoughts? Nightw 16:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Royal Ark was cited earlier as the source for the Hengzhen claim. Here is what their article says, "H.I.H. Prince P'u-chieh, [i.e. Pujie] ...Succeeded his elder brother as Head of the Imperial House of Ch'ing, 17th October 1967."[13] That sounds pretty cut and dried to me -- nothing here supports the view that Yuyan was ever head of the imperial house. Here is a news article in Chinese that reviews the current status of the imperial family and describes Jin Youzhi as “最后的皇弟” (final emperor). There is no mention of Yuyan or Hengzhen. What I think happened is that someone misinterpreted Buyers and added Hengzhen to the list on that basis. Now that mistake has mirrored through the Web to sites like "A Monarchist's Guide to the World", and those mirrors are being used to justify keeping him in.

On another note, I noticed that a lot of entries use royal names. It seems to me that the common should certainly be given as well. If everyone else is getting a royal name, Jin Youzhi should certainly get his. That would be "Prince Puren". Kauffner (talk) 06:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There are 3 separate concepts:

(1) Qing Emperor -- There was no rule of succession. The emperor appointed the successor in secret, and the decision was revealed to the successor and others only after the death of the emperor. It is worth noting that Pu Yi is an adopted son of Emperor Tongzhi and, after 1908, was no longer a member of Prince Chun's family. Memoirs of those in the Aisin Gioro clan do not dispute the secret adoption of Yu Yan by Pu Yi.

(2) Manchukuo Emperor -- There were succession rules. Basically if the emperor has no descendants, then his younger brother and the latter's descendants succeed. Based on these rules, Pu Jie and Pu Ren would have succeeded.

(3) Unofficial head of the Aisin Gioro clan as viewed by the current Chinese government. The heads are:

Zai Tao, uncle of Pu Yi and consultant in the People's Liberation Army (head of clan 1949-1970)

Pu Jie (1970-1994)

Pu Ren (1994-present)

202.171.168.178 (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Buyers gives Pujie as the last Chinese pretender.[14] The obits in 1994 called Pujie "the last Manchu." There was nothing about Puren succeeding. The succession law does not provide for succession by a half-brother anyway. A sovereign may grant an exception to the rules by exercising royal prerogative. But pretenders do not have such authority. Kauffner (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kauffner. Buyers is not 100% reliable. Upon comparison with the Aisin Gioro genealogical records published in 1938, and just looking at names and birth orders of the sons of the first Prince Ch'un (Yi-huan), there are several mistakes on this page [15]:

(1) Buyers gave the title of "Pu Ju Pa Fên Fu Kuo Kung" to many. This is wrong.

(2) (7 c) Tsai-li -- There is no such person. The third son of Yi-huan is unnamed and had not title, as he died a day and a half after birth.

(3) (7 e) Tsai-kuang is the fourth son of Yi-huan, not the fifth.

(4) (7 d) Tsai-fêng is the fifth son of Yi-huan and was born in 1883.

(5) (7 f) Tsai-hsün and (7 g) Tsai-t'ao were both adopted by other branches of the clan and should not appear under the first Prince Ch'un.

I believe that based on the customs of China and Manchukuo in 1940s, the word "younger brother" in the succession rules include half brothers as long as they have the same father.

202.171.168.178 (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Pujie's obit in The New York Times doesn't even mention Puren/Jin Youzhi. But it does say that Pujie's grandchildren are living in Japan. It seems that they are purely private citizens, as they not otherwise mentioned in the media. Prince Yi Geon's children, heirs to the Korean throne, also live in Japan as Japanese and keep their names out of the media. Kauffner (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

German pretenders and the Saxonies

I really protest the usage of the territorial names as house names for various branches of the House of Wettin. It is bizarre to call the royal line "the House of Wettin" yet have all of its agnates from other territorial lines the house of "Saxe-this or that". There is also a problem with categorization because of the constant reshuffling that families have "changed houses", which isn't true. If we are going to use territorial names as house names then we must use House of Austria, House of Prussia, etc. All of the Saxonies were ruled by members of the House of Wettin who, collectively, described themselves as members of the Saxon princely house (one house and family). Wikipedia itself defines all of these duchies, grand duchies and kingdoms as being ruled by the House of Wettin. Seven Letters 14:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a poor analogy, of course, as the states we're talking about were specifically named after their ruling families. On the other hand, Prussia was named after an ancient Baltic ethnic group and Austria is derived from the Latin for "eastern marches". Nightw 15:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

And this is where you are wrong. The states were named for their capitals. The Wettin lands in Saxony and Thuringia called Saxony-"whatever" was ruled by a duke of Saxony with the capital of "whatever". They were all dukes of Saxony and of the same house. The reason why territorial designations changed is because capitals were reshuffled among the family. Also, the Habsburgs nearly consistently called themselves the Archhouse/House of Austria, in Austria and in Spain, but we call them Habsburg-Lorraines (the Austrian Emperor was "Emperor of the House of Austria") Seven Letters 15:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Very interested in your reply to this. Seven Letters 15:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, in every instance except Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the "house name" when it is Saxe-whatever links to an article on the territory, not the family. These links already exist in the alphabetical listings of the pretenderships under the Germany heading. No need to have it twice! Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is the only anomaly because princes of this line ruled beyond Coburg and Gotha and in other territories. Similar, for instance, when a prince of X from the House of Y goes off to rule Z... He is then the ruler of Z from the House of X. X = Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Y = Wettin, Z = the UK, for instance. Seven Letters 14:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Provision for inheritance in Saxony: Die Krone ist erblich in dem Mannsstamme des Sächsischen Fürstenhauses nach dem Rechte der Erstgeburt und der agnatischen Linealfolge, vermöge Abstammung aus ebenbürtiger Ehe (The crown is hereditary in the male line of the Saxon princely house by right of primogeniture and agnatic lineal succession by virtue of descent from equal marriage). The bold is mine and it indicates one house, not the Saxon royal house (the descendants of the kings), but the princely house (all agnates) (such as the house of Bourbon in various Franco-Spanish treaties). Seven Letters 14:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not "bizarre", it is what they are called. The Bulgarian and Belgian royal families are technically the House of Wettin as well but we don't list them as such because they're of a specific branch. We don't list China under Aisin Gioro, we list it under Qing because that's what the family was called. We don't list France under the House of Capet, because its royal family was called Bourbon. We don't list Portugal under the House of Aviz, becuause its royal family was called Bragança. I don't see any reason to treat these lines differently. Linking is no problem, we can remove the duplicate links. And stop changing the spelling of names. If you don't like the spelling, take it up at the relevant article. Nightw 15:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you not read anything I said? Belgium and Bulgaria full under the "X Y Z" example I posted. You don't see any reason to treat them differently because that is your preference. We call the entire French-Spanish-etc house "Bourbon" because that is its most recent common branch from which all existing agnates issue. And we call "Reuss" that in English because it's the ENGLISH language. Also, by the way, the French also called themselves the House of France from time to time but that's because their line never had a name until Bourbon was adopted. You've shown that you know not of what you speak, which I can't exactly fault you for because you contribute to many, many other articles that are not royal related. I will later change the article after, hopefully, it has sunk in. Seven Letters 15:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Bulgaria and Belgium are listed as Saxe-Coburg and Gotha because they issue from it, and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha itself issues from Wettin. Seven Letters 15:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes your formula was delightful, but appears to be your own. I'm aware that our "preferences" appear to be conflicting, but as you've admitted your preference would be treating them differently, consistency is on my side. I don't know where Reuss fits into this (if that was in response to my issue with your changing of spellings, I was referring to Hesse-Kassel). Please adjust your tone and behaviour. Edit warring will lead nowhere, most likely simply protection of the article in its stable version (which is not the one you prefer, unfortunately). Nightw 15:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sanctimony is not becoming, particularly when I will later dedicate a bit of time to pick apart this article's "sources". The "formula" is the evident and apparent pattern for the SCG branch, as I explained. Wikipedia, by the way, is not consistent. Seven Letters 15:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, yet no source for it. In fact, it appears to contradict sources already given. I'll ask you one more time not to make personal remarks. Nightw 15:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If you drop the sanctimonious attitude, which you are using as a lever, I will proceed as you wish but it takes two, not one, in order to do so. Seven Letters 15:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to quote me where I've attacked you personally. Wikipedia is not consistent, but articles should be consistent within themselves. Nightw 16:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, there are no sources for the Saxon house names in the article, as you claimed. Just unreferenced explanations burying the house name. Beyond that, some links to websites that use a variety of forms to describe these families. Seven Letters 15:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

But not "Wettin", interestingly. See this, which is present in the article: "The House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha exists under this name since 1826. It is a branch of one of the oldest and most illustrious German noble families: the Wettins." Nightw 15:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Self-published, nonetheless and still referencing itself as but a branch of the Wettins. Of course, I explained why Saxe-Coburg and Gotha itself sometimes appears as a house: it is the common point where Bulgaria, Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom branched off. Seven Letters 15:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It explicitly states that the house is under that name. You haven't provided a source contradicting that claim. Nightw 15:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't contradict it. It's self-published and explicit in that it is but a branch of the Wettins. Seven Letters 15:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute that it's a branch of the House of Wettin, in fact it's mentioned in the footnote. Do you dispute that the name of the familial branch is Saxe-Coburg and Gotha? Nightw 16:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Not anymore than there is a Prussian branch of the House of Hohenzollern, a Russian branch of the House of Oldenburg, a Spanish branch of the House of Bourbon... then yes, there is a Saxe-Coburg and Gotha branch of the House of Wettin. Seven Letters 17:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Uhuh, and whereas the Russian branch of the House of Oldenburg is called Romanov, I'm asking you what you think the equivalent name would be for the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha branch of the House of Wettin? The source I quote may in fact be self-published, but as it's published by the head of the household, I think you'll struggle to find a more authoritative source. Nightw 07:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I already spoke for SCG. Seven Letters 15:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Royalark

I've just removed a reference to royalark per the outcome of two threads at RSN here. There are others but I have a vague memory that this article has appeared on other noticeboards recently and so think it best to double-check here before scrubbing things.

I rather think that the sources hosted by Angelfire should probably go also, btw. The discussions at RSN above will apply equally well to those. - Sitush (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice try

"India and Pakistan Main article: List of current Indian pretenders

Following the Partition of India in 1947, the majority of princely states in the subcontinent asceded to either the Dominion of Pakistan or the Union of India. Official recognition of hereditary royal entitlements and accompanying privy purses was abolished in the Republic of India through a constitutional amendment on 28 December 1971. The same was done in Pakistan on 1 January 1972. In many cases, members of the former ruling families of princely states retain a considerable degree of social prestige and even political influence within their communities. Many leaders continue to be referred to by their claimed titles, including most notably within the Supreme Court.[74][75]"

This is pure laziness. The so-called Linked Main Article doesn't even exist, so let's do some research and actually compile a table for former kingdoms within what are now India and Pakistan. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The article got deleted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current Indian pretenders - dwc lr (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, we need to list all the Indian pretenders here, absent a separate Article. In a table, that is, like the other tables we have here. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Potential source

Here it is: [16]. It certainly is better than nothing. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

People who claim to be God

Claim and argument retracted.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, they're crazy, but definitionally we can overlook that. Is being the Creator and eternal ruler of the whole Universe a kind of monarchy? If so, should we list people who claim to be God as pretenders? Seriously, let's at least discuss this. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Really? Who as a current pretender to a throne claims that? That-Vela-Fella (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC) They aren't claimants to Earthly thrones. They simply claim to be God, but is God's position as creator and ruler of the whole universe not itself a kind of throne? If so, does that not make people who claim to be God pretenders to the throne of the creator? If not, nevermind, but if so, why not list some of them? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Easter Island

I recently found a article that states that the grandson of the last king of Rapa Nui was coronated this year. Should we add him to the list? [17]. Spongie555 (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually the article states that Valentino Riroroko Tuki's coronation was last July, so he should be added to the list.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"Another throne with a living pretender is that of the Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia, a short-lived monarchy established during the 19th Century."

Well, then, shouldn't this be a 5th table entry under "American," instead of a side note paragraph? Just because it was short-lived, doesn't mean it didn't happen. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

File:Flag of the Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia.svg

Why will Wiki not let me put the Flag Icon in a table from this uploaded file? I'm using the same syntax from the rest of the table that works perfectly everywhere else, but it keeps returning what appears to be a compiler exception (and the stack text covering the compiler error links to a non-existent Article). The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Took some doing to put the RefList and all NoteLists where they should be...

So don't anyone mess it up again by repeating the same template calls earlier in the Article's source code. That prevents the latter template call from executing. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Poland?

Poland was an elective monarchy, plus it should be the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Tinynanorobots (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Poland ceased to be an elective monarchy with the adoption of the Constitution of 3 May 1791, which (1) designated Frederick Augustus I of Saxony to be the heir to the then-regnant Stanisław August Poniatowski (Stanisław, while having had a number of illegitimate children, never married nor had any intent of marrying, and thus was never going to produce a legitimate heir); (2) provided that the Polish throne would be hereditary in the line of Frederick Augustus I's sons, if he were to have any; and (3) provided that the Polish throne would be inherited by and to the line of Princess Maria Augusta of Saxony if Frederick Augustus I did not have any sons. Of course, the problem with this is that Frederick Augustus I of Saxony indeed never did sire any heirs male (indeed, Maria Augusta was the only one of Frederick Augustus I's legitimate children who was born alive—all three of Amalie of Zweibrücken-Birkenfeld's other pregnancies ended in stillbirths), and the European powers, not at all keen on enabling the possibility of the resurrection of an independent Poland, did everything they could to thwart every attempt to secure a marriage for Maria Augusta, who ended up dying a spinster in 1863. Consequently, there are no descendants of legitimate children of Frederick Augustus I. The Constitution of 1791 did not make any provision allowing for the inheritance of the Polish throne by collateral relations of Frederick Augustus I (in fact, if expressly provided that if the direct line of Frederick Augustus I was to become extinct, it would fall upon the Sejm to elect a new monarch. Thus, the current House of Wettin has no claim whatsoever to the Polish throne arising under the Constitution of 1791. That said, they may have a claim of pretense to the Duchy of Warsaw.—MNTRT2009 (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Post-nominal numbers?

Why are post-nominal numbers used for the Pretenders in this article?

First and foremost; with the odd exception (such as deposed monarchs such as Simeon II and Constantine II); pretenders to the thrones of abolished monarchies do not use the post-nominal numbers used in the article. For example; 'Franz II' is only ever styled 'Franz, Duke of Bavaria'; both by himself, and his supporters. Prince Leka of Albania has never been styled 'Leka II' by anyone; and so on. Perhaps a note also should be made about the actual titles used by pretenders that are different to those used by their reigning predecessors (for example; the use of the title 'Margrave of Meissen' by the heads of the Royal House of Saxony, the title 'Duke of Braganza' that is used by the head of the Portuguese Royal House, and so on.)

Secondly; and more importanly, the post-nominal numbers used by monarchs do not neccesarily follow a logical set pattern. For example; there have been seven Kings of Sweden named Carl, but the present King of Sweden is Carl XVI Gustaf (because King Carl IX of Sweden adopted that number based on a mythical history of Sweden written by Johannes Magnus; seven of the Kings named Carl prior to Carl IX did not actually exist, and Kings Carl VIII and Carl VII were so numbered retroactively.). There has only ever been one Queen Elizabeth of Australia, but the present Queen of Australia is styled 'Elizabeth II' in line with her numbering in the United Kingdom. King Victor Emmanuel III was the second King of Italy of that name, not the third (because the modern Kings of Italy numbered themselves along with the Dukes of Savoy and Kings of Sardinia who preceded them) and there have only been two Kings of Spain called Alfonso (Alfonso XII and his son Alfonso XIII); but they were not numbered 'Alfonso I' or 'Alfonso II' because they numbered themselves along with the Kings of Castile who preceded Spanish unification, and so on; there being many more examples.

Third, another massive; massive reason why it's not a good idea to use monarchical names for pretenders, heirs; or people who 'would be King or Queen if the monarchy still existed is that monarchs on their accession are not forced to use their first name as their regnal name. For example, George VI was christened Albert, but he used one of his middle names for his regnal name. Similarly, his grandfather; Edward VII; was also christened Albert, but used his middle name as his regnal name.King George I of Greece was born Prince Vilhelm of Denmark and George was one of his middle names, and so on, and more to the point; what about someone like Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia? Would he be Georg Friedrich I, German Emperor and King of Prussia? Or maybe Friedrich IV; German Emperor and King of Prussia? Or maybe even Georg I, German Emperor? There are no rules in any monarchy which dictate what name the monarch has to use on their accession to the throne.Monarchs are not forced to use their first name; or even any of their given names when they accede to a throne. For example; Elizabeth II's full name is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary. So; on her accession, she could have called herself Alexandra I. Or she could have called herself Mary III. Or she could have adopted a name totally at random that was not one of her given names; so she could very well have called herself Victoria II if she wanted. She could have decided to use whatever number after her name if she wanted; because the title of the monarch is part of the royal prerogative. -and what about monarchs who have adopted regnal names that are not one of their given names? King Haakon VII of Norway was born Prince Carl of Denmark and did not adopt the name Haakon until he became King of Norway in 1905 (in reference to the medieval kings of Norway who bore that name) and it was not amongst the names he was given when he was christened. Likewise; the short-reigning King Mindaugas II of Lithuania did not have that name amongst his given names; and neither did Tomislav II of Croatia. It the purpose of wikipedia to present facts; not show people using titles they do not use and regnal names and titles they may well not use should they be lucky enough to regain their ancestor's throne.

My point? Assigning post-nominal numbers to pretenders who those not use them; and, if they were actually plonked back onto the throne of a hypothetical restored monarchy, may not even use (for various reasons) is plainly WP:CRYSTALBALL and should not be done. It is not the place of wikipedia to guess at these things, nor to invent numbers either. (which would also be WP:OR.)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I hear you. They should all be referred to by names that people actually call them. I haven't checked or anything, but a lot of these "royal" names strike me as bogus. This is the modern world. If a pretender set up a court and started calling himself Emperor Bokassa II or whatever, people would laugh. Kauffner (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

So true in all the points made, even if they were to ever get back onto the throne. They should all be looked at & properly referred to what is sourced at what they are presently named. A few may be found to be titled & numbered according to their royal family and supporters, thus would be shown to that related link. Only those not substantiated can be removed. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there's more room for difference in here than you're implying.

For a start, there are some pretenders, such as the Carlists, who have always given themselves regnal names and numbers.

Secondly, there are others, like the Jacobites, French pretenders, etc, whose supporters have always pretty much always referred to by regnal name and number; for example, pretty much all supporters of the Count of Paris consider him to be 'Henry VII'.

And thirdly, there are some whose given names are such that in the tradition of their country there'd really be no other plausible option if they were actually on the throne. For example, the Prince of Naples would obviously take the name 'Victor Emmanuel IV'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.27.154 (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

For a start, there are some pretenders, such as the Carlists, who have always given themselves regnal names and numbers.

-yup, which if you'd bothered to read my previous post properly, is exactly what I said. If they do use a regnal number (like for example, ex-Kings Simeon II, Michael I, and Constantine II, absolutely, it should be mentioned. If they don't use a regnal number (like, for example, [Franz, Duke of Bavaria], then they shouldn't be listed as using one, and should be listed with the title he actually uses.

Secondly, there are others, like the Jacobites, French pretenders, etc, whose supporters have always pretty much always referred to by regnal name and number; for example, pretty much all supporters of the Count of Paris consider him to be 'Henry VII'.

-in actual fact, the Jacobite pretenders themselves used regnal numbers; the Old Pretender styled himself 'James III' as regards Scotland, and VIII as regards Scotland, and the Young Pretender during his 'reign' styled himself Charles III.

Do you have a source as regards the Count of Paris? At any rate, where does one draw the line? A case might be made (but I'd still personally disagree) if a large percentage of a nation's population view him as such, and there are as a result a large number of sources to show this, but what if only a few people 'style' the head of a deposed dynasty thusly? How many people actually style say, the Duke of Wurttemberg with a monarchical ordinal and style him as 'King of Wurttemberg'? How many sources will show him using that title as opposed to those using, y'know, the title he actually uses?

And thirdly, there are some whose given names are such that in the tradition of their country there'd really be no other plausible option if they were actually on the throne. For example, the Prince of Naples would obviously take the name 'Victor Emmanuel IV'

-Why is that so 'obvious'? It's interesting you should mention the Prince of Venice because his great-grandfather, Umberto I of Italy did exactly that and broke with tradition (the Kings of Sardinia and later Italy numbered themselves along with the Dukes of Savoy that they descended from. Using the 'tradition of their country' he should have been Umberto IV of Italy, but he preferred to take the title of Umberto I, there having been no other Kings of Italy before him that we're called Umberto. Which is an excellent illustration of how the way monarchs are numbered has absolutely nothing to do with 'tradition', and everything to do with politics. It is up to the monarch (or more usually the government acting in their name), not tradition or anything else, because monarchical numbering is part of the Royal Prerogative.

Of course, we can say 'it's quite likely that the Prince of Naples would become Victor Emanuel IV if restored to the Italian throne, but not only is that mere opinion, it is WP:CRYSTALBALL and also original research: what if he decided to not recognise the reign of his grandfather because of his links to fascism and styled himself Victor Emanuel III? Unlikely, but not impossible. We can't just invent numerals that might not actually be used. What if he used one of his other Christian names as his regnal name? (again, not impossible, and not without precedent), and so on. And what if there is dispute about what a pretender is called by his supporters? What if one faction of supporters calls Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia 'Georg I, German Emperor and King of Prussia. and another calls him Friedrich IV, German Emperor and King of Prussia, and yet another calls him George Friedrich I (again, not without precedent)?

Wikipedia is about presenting facts, backed up with sources, not making stuff up and justifying it because its what's most likely or 'what they should be called'. There is absolutely no set, logical pattern to the way monarchs are numbered. It is entirely up to the whim of the individual monarch or government.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Beauharnais pretenders to Italy

This might be just a point of inconsistency rather than anything else, but if the Kingdom of Westphalia, a state entirely made up by Napoleon, is credited as having a pretender, why don't the other states that had Bonaparte or Napoleon-created rulers have pretenders from their line? OK, for many of them succession laws might contradict - for example, if Joseph Bonaparte had remained King of Spain, would succession be governed by what pre-1808 laws, i.e. Semi-Salic succession, or would Napoleon have imposed full Salic Law? But for Italy there can be no real dispute, as Italy has always had Salic Law, and so should the descendants of Napoleon's heir in Italy, Eugene de Beauharnais, be considered pretenders to the Italian throne? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.27.154 (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

-Nope; because Napoleon gave up all claims to the throne of Italy with the 1814 Treaty of Paris, for both himself and his heirs (the heir according to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Italy, in the absence of a second legitimate son of Napoleon, was Eugene de Beauharnais,), more to the point, he did not claim the Italian throne during the Hundred Days and neither have the heads of the Beauharnais family nor their supporters on their behalf, or anyone for that fact, claimed the Italian throne. Same goes for the Kingdom of Westphalia, which was likewise definitely renounced, and should thus not be included, and neither should the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There would still be the claim that those renunciations were made under duress and thus could still be claimed. 74.252.105.130 (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Southern Court

Should the dispute over the Northern/Southern Japanese Imperial court count as an example of a pretender monarch? There have been several cases of people saying they should be Emperor (I believe there was one in the 1960s and a few more since then) because they were descended from the 1300s Emperor Go-Daigo, deposed by a rival imperial bloodline during the Namboku-cho wars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homusubi (talk • contribs) 21:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Bosnia royalty entry

I was trying to make the following entry:

Bosnia	Omerbashich	2010	Omerbašić Berislavić Nemanjić	Descendant of Ban Borić (1141-1173) and prince Ivaniš Berislavić (1504–1514).	Hereditary	1527

But some were opposed, saying that references are needed besides self-published ones, that wikilinks can't be used as sources, or that this is a hoax. Note however: there's nothing wrong with this or any other legal claim for that matter. They are all legit prima facie, and in the regal matters the burden of proof is not on him who's making the claim. Otherwise counter-claims wouldn't exist and we wouldn't have them listed, like the Jacobite pretender to the throne of England. Simply, this is a legal not historical issue, and I hope that we can all agree on that? Everyone is entitled to advancing a claim to anything, and in matters regal, there's no world authority or court of law where you could take your regal claim for approval. All we need in order to verify such a claim is to make sure that it was in fact advanced. And what's better for verification of such a claim than the source itself? This is a classical example of why primary sources are allowed on Wikipedia too. Even if you don't agree this is a legal matter or legit claim, have a look at other entries: the Bulgaria entry for instance cites wikilinks and self-published sources, the Ukraine entry does look like a hoax or a bad joke at the very least, and so on. Still, both those claims and others are included without anyone objecting? This Bosnian claim looks anything but a hoax. 178.79.149.253 (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There's been no counter-arguments or objections for 3 days, so I added the above entry to the article. 178.79.190.148 (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• It is not notable hoax and burden of proof is not on us. Do you have 2-3 independent reliable sources about him? Everybody knows Simeon II, because he really ruled over Bulgaria, but nobody knows this Bosnian guy.--Yopie (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Burden of proof - read above on the meaning of prima facie, sorry it's not in Czechian. Hoax allegation - can't get into merit of a legal claim per WP:POV. Don't try "I own Wikipedia" trick either so stop reverting good faith edits w/o discussion - you had 3 days to discuss but you failed to contribute so my entry stays. Simeon - he ruled not so long ago which is why many heard of him, you should instead compare my entry to most of other claimants of whose illustrious ancestors also most haven't heard. Note this isn't a popularity contest. Finally - why are you dodging the obvious Ukraine hoax: claim by a descendant of non-royal nobility? 178.79.190.148 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I've just done a google search and can see reliable independent sources for the Ukrainian Hetman family. This alleged descendant of Bosnian royalty is not notable; any fantasist can make a website and pretend to be descended from royalty and heir to a throne. - dwc lr (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

We can't use "google search" or take anyone's word. Regardless what you found, Hetman was not a royal title but military rank. Some descendant of a military commander is trying to become a Ukraine's monarch. I call hoax. This Bosnian claimant and his ancestors on the other hand are well referenced indeed. 178.79.190.148 (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that catch. I know for a fact (touches me at a personal level) hetmans were east European generals. Not kings. Ukraine hoax removed. Zumbala (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, thank you for your support! It seems we have a team of editors (or a sockpuppet) with an agenda. 178.79.163.71 (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources, self published sources are not acceptable. - dwc lr (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course they are, see prima facie for why legal claims need no secondary sources; a proof that the claim has been advanced is sufficient indeed. Look also at the Bulgaria entry: royal family's press room referenced too. And I doubt you can get PO Box 1 in nation's capital and royalfamily.ba domain unless legit. 178.79.190.148 (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Provide reliable secondary sources or go. You know, that this thing will end similarly as before... We all remember it.--Yopie (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, may I suggest you assume the user's good faith? I don't see any problem with his edit. Zumbala (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

That may be because one of you is a sockpuppet. Regardless, at least three long-time editors have objected to the quality of sources used to insert this claim, while one (or two) continue to reverst in defiance of 3RR. Allegations that this is protected by a prima facie "legal claim" violates the no original research principle and other stuff exists doesn't justify retention of this repeatedly challenged claim. FactStraight (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

If I were a sockpuppet I wouldn't be using IP. If anyone is a scokpuppet here it's you: your using "long-time editors" argument is a clear violation of policies: length of editing means nothing since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that everyone can edit. Even if your argument was valid, from what I can tell Zumbala is a quite old account. So it's 3:2 for now, which is far from consensus especially since all "three" of you are long-time editors, which is an interesting coincidence: no newer account, no IP user, no users who're not self-declared monarchists... fishy business indeed. By the way, read above discussion before commenting: prima facie means exact opposite from what you took it to mean. This claim is self-sufficient, but any discussion about the claim requires somebody's POV. And don't call my entry a "repeatedly challenged claim" without providing references to support your statement that the claim was ever challenged let alone repeatedly. The burden of proof is with those who wish to challenge this claim. Regal claimants advance their claim outside civil courts systems so there is no judge and therefore no verdict on any such claim's validity. Simply, there is no legal requirement that they have to fulfill in order to make their claim. Which is how counterclaims exist, and are listed in the table too like the Jacobite counterclaim to the throne of England. This table lists claims. We can't be the judges as to validity of a claim: that would violate WP:POV. We can only record a claim once advanced. Which is what my entry contributes to. Interesting to note that neither of you "three" even cares to discuss arguments, which does point to the conclusion that you most likely are the same person with multiple accounts. That would be another severe violation of policies. Also: don't threaten me ("You know, that this thing will end similary (sic) as before") and don't reverse removals of self-evident hoaxes like the Ukraine entry with the claim made by non-royalty. 178.79.163.71 (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Just for record: above mentioned guy fails to verify notability (WP:N) of his claim and was blocked for edit warring and sock-puppeting.--Yopie (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

In addition to your awful grammar, rendering your sentence nonsensical, you're also misleading readers about blocking/locking reasons. 92.48.78.242 (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been looking at this, and it all appears to be Mr. Mensurbashich himself, claiming to be the King of Bosnia (as well as a scientific genius and other stuff), citing his own website and his own documents in order to bootstrap a claim of notability. He also appears to be using Tor nodes or some similar method of IP hopping. Any further pursuit of this will result in all of these IPs being blocked as we go. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Anton Gunther's death

The titual Grand Duke of Oldenburg was died on the September 20th and succeeded by his son Christian. The table should by updated by someone. Christian - since 20 September 2014 - Great-grandson of Grand Duke Friedrich August II — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.217.159 (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Done —Tamfang (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine "pretender" hoax

Argument Some descendant of a Ukrainian hetman claims "throne of Ukraine" however not only that there's no such throne but hetman was a military rank. Therefore, since this person is obviously not a royal, the Ukraine entry is either a hoax or that individual is an impostor. In the latter case, according to the article's introduction: impostors are not listed. Finally: the editor who added the Ukraine entry didn't seek consensus although the matter is evidently controversial. 178.79.163.71 (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• As seen from the preceding discussion on the Bosnia royalty entry and edit wars, it seems we have a sockpuppet: Yopie, FactStraight, Edward321, dwc lr - all dealing almost exclusively with monarchist topics so it's likely a sockpuppet who created a slew of accounts to circumvent WP:SPA. It's highly unlikely that such a bizarre topic has so many active editors, and that pretty much all are on this article simultaneously in a concerted effort to bend the rules. Alternatively, we have a case of teamed-up editors paid by ruling European royal families to push for those families agenda = steer Wikipedia to the most favorable version on monarchism. This would resemble the infamous invasion of Wikipedia by CIA, Vatican and other interested parties, as widely reported by media. This sockpuppet or teamed-up editors are attempting to hijack Wikipedia's monarchism topics w/o explanations and w/o seeking consensus. At the same time he/she/they support (again w/o explanation, discussion or consensus) bogus claim by a descendant of a Ukrainian military general who wasn't royalty. Everyone involved in this prima facie legal matter: please disclose in clear terms whether you're in any way financed by reigning royal families from Europe or elsewhere. 178.79.163.71 (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Franz, Duke of Bavaria

At the top of the page it states that a pretender is an aspirant or claimant to a throne and in the article for Franz Duke of Bavaria it states "It is not, however, a claim which he pursues; the president of his administration, Baron Marcus Bechtolsheim, stating: "really, he is very happy and satisfied with being the Duke of Bavaria."[1]" thus Franz neither aspires or claims the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland, so should he really be on this list? 80.193.189.151 (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It also says at the top of the page "Prominent and reliably-sourced claims made on a person's behalf are included regardless of whether that person stakes an active claim, provided that the person possesses a legitimate link to the line of succession". Franz may not be making the claim himself, but people do on his behalf. Psunshine87 (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Indian Princely States.

There needs to be a list of pretenders to the various thrones of the Indian princely states.

Of course, there was several hundred princely states in what is now Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. - (202.89.140.117 (talk) 05:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC))

Ukraine : Olena Skoropadska-Ott passed away on 2014.

According to the Ukrainian version(Олена Отт-Скоропадська), she passed away on 4 Aug 2014. Who is her successor? Khaospedia (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Tokugawas?

Just curious why they're not included, when their current family head has a Wikipedia article. Are they not considered royalty because they used the figleaf of the Emperor?--216.116.252.50 (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly it.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 37 external links on List of current pretenders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090408105112/http://uqconnect.net:80/~zzhsoszy/states/africa/rwanda.html to http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/states/africa/rwanda.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927224117/http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/states/asia/champassak.html to http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/states/asia/champassak.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100307021942/http://www.chivalricorders.org:80/royalty/gotha/bagrtgen.htm to http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/bagrtgen.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091113131748/http://uqconnect.net:80/~zzhsoszy/states/burma/hsipaw.html to http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/states/burma/hsipaw.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110708052117/http://mangraisofkengtung.blogspot.com/2007/10/rulers-of-kengtung-from-1881-to-1997.html to http://mangraisofkengtung.blogspot.com/2007/10/rulers-of-kengtung-from-1881-to-1997.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111008010626/http://www.investkorea.org/InvestKoreaWar/work/journal/content/content_print.jsp?code=4670408 to http://www.investkorea.org/InvestKoreaWar/work/journal/content/content_print.jsp?code=4670408
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050220105527/http://uqconnect.net:80/~zzhsoszy/states/malaysia/sarawak.html to http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/states/malaysia/sarawak.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100324080635/http://www.royalark.net:80/Vietnam/annam10.htm to http://www.royalark.net/Vietnam/annam10.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080924192047/http://uqconnect.net:80/~zzhsoszy/states/nepal/jajarkot.html to http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/states/nepal/jajarkot.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080924192042/http://uqconnect.net:80/~zzhsoszy/states/nepal/bajang.html to http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/states/nepal/bajang.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050222042426/http://uqconnect.net:80/~zzhsoszy/states/nepal/bhirkot.html to http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/states/nepal/bhirkot.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090807112446/http://uqconnect.net:80/~zzhsoszy/states/yemen/shihrmukalla.html to http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/states/yemen/shihrmukalla.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100210000618/http://www.chivalricorders.org:80/royalty/gotha/birongen.htm to http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/birongen.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091212104944/http://www.royaute.org:80/page3.html to http://www.royaute.org/page3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100613004735/http://chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/frenlegt.htm to http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/frenlegt.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100619034258/http://www.maisonroyaledefrance.fr:80/biographie_comte_fr.html to http://maisonroyaledefrance.fr/biographie_comte_fr.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100613003315/http://chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/orlnsgen.htm to http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/orlnsgen.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100612061218/http://www.burkespeerage.com:80/FamilyHomepage.aspx?FID=313 to http://www.burkespeerage.com/FamilyHomepage.aspx?FID=313
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080705210731/http://www.borbone-due-sicilie.org/english/genealogy.html to http://www.borbone-due-sicilie.org/english/genealogy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100613000859/http://chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/portgenl.htm to http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/portgenl.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100613001007/http://chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/russgen.htm to http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/russgen.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100613003836/http://chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/russuclw.htm to http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/russuclw.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100613013227/http://chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/serbgen.htm to http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/serbgen.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100613013609/http://chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/bavaria.htm to http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/bavaria.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100811154033/http://praguepost.com/news/4211-schwarzenberg-talks-election.html to http://www.praguepost.com/news/4211-schwarzenberg-talks-election.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100613003435/http://chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/italia.htm to http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/italia.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080415191639/http://www.chivalricorders.org:80/royalty/gotha/italygen.htm to http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/italygen.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100613001305/http://chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/parma/brbprmgn.htm to http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/parma/brbprmgn.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090418162947/http://www.borboneparma.it:80/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=47 to http://www.borboneparma.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=47
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100613013410/http://chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/gonzagen.htm to http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/gonzagen.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100613020836/http://chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/muratgen.htm to http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/muratgen.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100613015606/http://chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/piombgen.htm to http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/piombgen.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100613002418/http://chivalricorders.org/royalty/habsburg/tuscany/stefgen.htm to http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/habsburg/tuscany/stefgen.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110716065044/http://www.burkespeerage.com/FamilyHomepage.aspx?FID=7174 to http://www.burkespeerage.com/FamilyHomepage.aspx?FID=7174
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090327112856/http://www.parliament.gov.ki:80/members.html to http://www.parliament.gov.ki/members.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081120141048/http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/states/oceania/cocosislands.html to http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/states/oceania/cocosislands.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090827020607/http://www.tahitipresse.pf:80/2009/05/joinville-pomare-sest-fait-introniser-roi-pomare-xi/ to http://www.tahitipresse.pf/2009/05/joinville-pomare-sest-fait-introniser-roi-pomare-xi/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of current pretenders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716065117/http://www.burkespeerage.com/familyhomepage.aspx?FID=0&FN=OCONORDON to http://www.burkespeerage.com/familyhomepage.aspx?FID=0&FN=OCONORDON
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110112092440/http://www.burkespeerage.com:80/familyhomepage.aspx?FID=0&FN=MACMORROUGHKAVANAGH to http://www.burkespeerage.com/familyhomepage.aspx?FID=0&FN=MACMORROUGHKAVANAGH
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716065035/http://www.burkespeerage.com/familyhomepage.aspx?FID=0&FN=ONEILLOFCLANNABOY to http://www.burkespeerage.com/familyhomepage.aspx?FID=0&FN=ONEILLOFCLANNABOY

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of current pretenders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100612234053/http://chivalricorders.org/ to http://www.chivalricorders.org/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100522085526/http://www.uq.net.au:80/~zzhsoszy/ to http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Fiji

Should George Cakobau, Jr., great-grandson of Fijian king Seru Epenisa Cakobau be included on the list? Grutness...wha? 11:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

India and Pakistan

Jammu and Kashmir

I have observed and reverted vandalism here today, by an IP editor 194.79.189.126. The case of the heavily disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir, can appear complex at first, though it's relatively simple to the neutral observer willing to weigh up the history and compare sources from different conflicting parties engaged in the conflict including India, and Pakistan, and international sources. Accordingly, Karan Singh cannot be a pretender, as he voluntarily gave up his claim to the throne and thus abdicated. Karan Singh was only Prince Regent of the Dogra dynasty, and was never coronated as the Maharaja, even after he and Prime Minister Abdullah forced his father Hari Singh into exile on the Indian-administered side of Kashmir. Later, following abdication Karan Singh took the title of President of Jammu and Kashmir, and was a cabinet minister in the government of India that passed the 26th constitutional amendment of 1971, that by law banned all Indian citizens from holding royal titles. This law would apply to Karan Singh, and his lineage, who appear to have never protested against it. However, the current pretender to the throne, Ankit Love who moved to the United Kingdom as a child in 1989, seized to be an Indian citizen in 2009, and thus is not legally under mandate of the 26th amendment of India. Ankit Love is also a music artist, which I think throws people off at times, as does his surname Love, in relation to an ongoing armed conflict in Asia. Regardless according to both local, and international sources he is from the royal family of Kashmir, and his father Bhim Singh has been a prominent member and political leader of the Dogras for over five decades in the ongoing armed conflict for Kashmir. These national and international sources also carry and highlight news of Ankit Love's claim to the throne, that he made from London, United Kingdom. JuneKennedy (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of current pretenders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe_Former_Reigning.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080617204448/http://www.nikolairomanov.com/presentation/index.html to http://www.nikolairomanov.com/presentation/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Saxe_Weimar_Royal_Family.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Saxe_Meiningen_Royal_Family.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100515020348/http://www.obrienclan.com/conorf.htm to http://www.obrienclan.com/conorf.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parliament.gov.ki/members.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parliament.gov.ki/historical.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe_Former_Reigning.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Karl Emich

Shouldn't Karl Emich be listed as a Russian pretender? He is considered heir by the Russian Monarchist Party. Arguably both Maria Vladimirovna and Andrew Romanov are the product of morganaic marriages thus unable to succeed, rendering Karl Emich as the next in line. 74.252.105.130 (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Typically, the sources mention only Maria and do not treat the Russian pretendership as contested. Here is The Telegraph: "Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, is the current head of the Romanov dynasty." See also Royalty Who Wait. If you go by the succession law, women are not eligible. By this standard, the Romanov dynasty died out in 1992 when Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich (Maria's father) died. Whiff of greatness (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

No, Russia's Pauline laws did not enshrine Salic law, and until the monarchy's abolition in the Russian Revolution, women were always constitutionally eligible to inherit and to mount the Imperial throne. It is a common myth that Tsar Paul I of Russia so deeply resented his mother, Catherine the Great, for usurping and keeping Russia's throne for life that he excluded women from the succession. The contrary is the case: he codified the right of Romanov women to wear Russia's crown -- upon extinction of all male Romanov dynasts. Article 30 of the original Pauline laws: When the last male issue of the Emperor’s sons is extinct, succession remains in the same branch, but in the female issue of the last reigning Emperor, as being nearest to the Throne, and therein it follows the same order, with preference to a male over a female person; but the female person from whom this right directly proceeds never loses this right. Maria Vladimirovna may or may not be Russia's rightful pretender, but arguments against her claim are not and cannot be legally based on the fact that she is a woman. What is true is that opposition to her grandfather's, father's and her own claims to the throne have persisted since 1924, when it became generally known that Nicholas II, his children and brother had all been secretly killed by the Bolsheviks in 1918. Her dynastic and vocal rivals appear to have died out, but opponents presumably survive in the Romanov Family Association, driven less by specific legal objections nowadays than by a kind of anybody-but-Maria animus among relatives and royalists. Ergo, the development of some cautiously rising support for Prince Karl Emich of Leiningen (see below). FactStraight (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Amazing that a new pretender to a defunct European throne would emerge in the 21st century! True, Karl Emich's main supporter appears to be an eccentric, traditionalist Russian plutocrat who wants to be the "power behind the throne", and seeks to promote someone for the job who, as a fount of honour, will (did?) certify him as possessing a hereditary title. But this impresario has 3 things going for him: 1. Resources: the wealth to buy property and entreé that elicit local public interest and, often, tongue-in-cheek journalistic coverage; 2. Fervor: the determination to keep taking actions that place the chosen pretender in the public eye, to complete and register for him the right bureaucratic forms to "legally" create a recognized, if tiny, monarchist political organization a là Spain's modern Carlist Party and a "realm" (or at least an unoccupied rock-in-the-sea over which the nearest nation is willing to "relinquish" official sovereignty for a price, i.e. a micro-nation), coupled with relentless advocacy for the proclaimed "monarchy" and its "monarch", done with enough earnestness and generosity to elicit "acknowledgists" if not supporters. Many a throne has been filled by a pliable princeling backed by an ambitious éminence grise who wanted to wield power -- not claim it for himself; and 3. Candidate: a willing nominee with just enough imperial Russian blood that he can't be summarily dismissed as a royal impostor claiming to be someone else, and thus is eligible to be, theoretically, the beneficiary of a carefully contrived and convoluted rationale that can justify (at least to the gullible) why he -- and no other -- is the "rightful" claimant to the ancient throne. In this case, the tale told combines selected Pauline laws requiring narrowly interpreted "royal marriage" rules, religious tests, and (occasional) visits to the realm (Russia and/or "the rock") that, when taken together, exclude all other possible "heirs" to the throne except -- Voila! -- Karl Emich. We now have a claimant who fits virtually any nominal definition of a royal pretender: "Lights, camera, action!" So I vote that Karl Emich meets, at least technically, the test for inclusion. After all, how did history's monarchs become so, if not for the muster of some combination of these three characteristics -- and the passage of time? The irony is that the puppeteer is far more notable than his Pinnochio, being less a grifter than a fascinating kind of true believer, in the classic mold of The Great Gatsby. FactStraight (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I searched for "Karl Emich" on Highbeam. They have four stories that focus on his relationship with the Aga Khan's wife -- nothing about his claim to the Russian throne. Where has it received notable coverage? Whiff of greatness (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Here, for instance. Emich Karl, too, has led an interesting life, heretofore centered on his marriages; the tragedy of the first, the scandal, lawsuits and family feud of the second -- overshadowed in the media by that wife's subsequent exotic marriage, and the belated male heir born of the third. Only recently have his own endeavors garnered coverage -- and that mostly in connection with Anton Bakov, and mostly in Russian. FactStraight (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

If nothing else, Karl Emich sounds way cooler than Maria. Whiff of greatness (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

China and Manchukou

I restored the material on China based on this article. See also this and this. Notice that all three sources describe the subject as heir to China's throne, not to Manchukuo's. User:George6VI has a campaign to remove any mention of a Chinese pretender from a variety of articles. IMO the issues for and against listing a Chinese pretender are similar to those of the other people on this list. None of them have any official or legal status. Jin isn't actively asserting a claim, but that's also true of many of the others. Whiff of greatness (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

All the current sources said they may/could be Chinese emperor, but the claim in this article is Wikipedia:OR. - George6VI (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Burma

I am afraid editing this boxes is too much for me, but I was hoping someone might be able to add a second pretender to the Burmese entry. The person to be added is Soe Win (Prince) who seems to be the acknowledged "head of the family" by the existing members of the Konbaung dynasty. He is the pretender in terms of primogeniture while the other 'pretender' is there by virtue of his seniority. The two men are seen together occasionally and Soe Win is recognised as the family head. There are many articles - when I have the Soe Win article sorted out (I have just created the link for the page) would someone add him so there are two pretenders on the Burma entry on this page? Aetheling1125 (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of current pretenders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130127174317/http://www.kongoavenir.com/lafamilleroyalepage11.html to http://www.kongoavenir.com/lafamilleroyalepage11.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101221140212/http://www.monarquia.org.br/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&id=7&Itemid=58 to http://www.monarquia.org.br/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&id=7&Itemid=58
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130717124757/http://www.casaimperial.org/emperador.htm to http://www.casaimperial.org/emperador.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607082226/http://arabnews.com/lifestyle/art_culture/article381639.ece to http://arabnews.com/lifestyle/art_culture/article381639.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100426084321/http://www.kingsimeon.bg/pages/show/id/20 to http://www.kingsimeon.bg/pages/show/id/20
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100816153823/http://www.njegoskij.org/rubrique12.html to http://www.njegoskij.org/rubrique12.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100504130203/http://www.nettyroyal.nl/luxemburg1.html to http://www.nettyroyal.nl/luxemburg1.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.schloss-bueckeburg.de/page/page_ID/90?PHPSESSID=37188eda36979f802eca44b41e2caf0f

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of current pretenders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726221258/http://www.keouanui.org/KalokuokamaileChart.html to http://www.keouanui.org/KalokuokamaileChart.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Scotland, Wales, and Ireland

Regarding Scotland, shouldn't there be a pretender representing succession from John Balliol? Based on strict primogeniture he became king when Margaret Maid of Norway died (Edward I of England supported this claim), and he was the rightful king until his death and should have been followed by his son Edward. Edward Balliol died without issue thus the throne would have passed to the descendants of John Balliol's sisters.

Regarding Wales, technically there shouldn't be any claimants as Wales did not practice automatic primogeniture like England/Britain/UK developed: all adult sons without defect were potential heirs and the ruling king/prince would choose one as an Edling. While custom favored the eldest son, as one author put it this was merely a bias, not a law, thus until the deposed houses assembled to agree on an heir there is none.

Regarding Gaelic Ireland, how is there a claimant to the high throne? That throne was always filled by whoever could convince enough of the country to recognize him as high king, and the other thrones of Ireland were inherited via tanistry, requiring the family to elect an heir from among the previous king's immediate family (adult, patrilineal descendant's of his great-grandfather). Emperor001 (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit on Scotland. Edward Balliol sold his claim to Edward III, thus every rightful English monarch since him could have called himself the rightful heir to the throne of Scotland. Emperor001 (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

"Finnish Monarchist Party"

There are two "sources" for "Finnish Monarchist Party". One is inaccessible ""Sivua ei löydy") and another with irrelevant texts in Latin. No real sources exists about the so-called "House of Kohtala" --193.40.110.5 (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

---

List of current pretenders → Heads of former ruling houses – The term "pretender" is typically used to suggest that a claim made by the subject is without reasonable basis. Looking at several of the sources for this article, I don't see anyone else using the term in the sense that this title does. The usage here does correspond to that in the article pretender, where it is sourced to a French-language work. The lazy mouse (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support or list of heads of.. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Opposeעם ישראל חי (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The term "pretender" is used more broadly - for those who do assert their claims, for those who don't but have a clear recognised claim under the previous rules of succession and also for cases where the current heirs don't seek restoration of the throne but do claim the head of the house (and sometimes the pretendership, via a claim to the family's former property), at times in dispute with cousins - e.g Italy, Russia, France etc... Also some of the pretenders are not from the ruling house that was deposed at the time but are rather the heirs to it - for example the current Jacobite pretender to the British & Irish thrones is not from the House of Stuart. Timrollpickering 08:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This list cites American Heritage for the definition of pretender: “One who sets forth a claim, especially a claimant to a throne.”[18] The bug tells us to follow British usage, so here is Oxford: "A person who claims or aspires to a title or position."[19] Duke Franz of Bavaria does not actively claim the English throne and is thus not a pretender by these definitions. He also not descendant of James II and therefore not a Jacobite. (The Jacobites died out in 1807.) What he is is the guy who would be king if it wasn’t for the Act of Settlement of 1701 and the prohibition against Catholics. That’s certainly a notable status, but perhaps not one that lends itself to a compact description. Franz is head of the House of Wittelsbach, so he would certainly remain on the list under the new title. The lazy mouse (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    • See Pretender and its talkpage for the broader use of the term rather than performing your original research. The Dukes of Bavaria are very often described by reliable sources as the modern day Jacobite pretenders - they may not be descended from James II & VII himself but their claim rests on being the ones in the succession that was displaced in 1688. Timrollpickering 12:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Here is an article in The Telegraph on Franz's claim to the throne. They don't call him a pretender or a Jacobite. But they do quote a peerage specialist who says that he is the current head of the House of Stuart. I take it that is the preferred terminology. The lazy mouse (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is a difference between a pretender/claimant, one who would have inherited a throne but for an illegal abolition or usurpation, and the head of a House, the senior-most male-line of the dynasty. Due to female-line inheritance a claim may pass from House to House. For example, the Jacobite claim passed from the male-line of the Stuarts to the Houses of Savoy, Habsburg, and Wittelsbach, and even then the heir might not be the parent Head of the House. The Habsburg heirs to the Jacobite claim were from a cadet branch, not the main House of Habsburg that ruled Austria at the time a Habsburg had the claim. Emperor001 (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you have a published source for the claim that a pretender is, "one who would have inherited a throne but for an illegal abolition or usurpation"? Surely the more common usage is to suggest that the subject has no reasonable basis to claim whatever it is they are claiming. I have already cited two dictionaries to support this definition. The "Jacobite pretenders" were named by their enemies, who didn't want to remind the public that the rebels backed the Stuarts, the former ruling family, against Hanoverians who had no genealogical claim. The lazy mouse (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm basing that mostly on what I have read here on Wikipedia and other online sources. A pretender is a person who claims the throne on the basis that the rightful line was deposed in some manner. For example, the Jacobite claim is based on the claim that James II and VII was illegally overthrown and thus any subsequent change in the succession law was invalid for lack of royal assent. The claimants to the royal throne of France claim that the monarchy was illegally abolished by Revolution. By contrast, I would note that Elizabeth II is not listed as a pretender to Commonwealth Realms like India that became republics (at least not that I have ever seen). Presumably the reason she is not considered a pretender to those countries is because she voluntarily assented to the monarchy's abolition as opposed to a violent overthrow. I have never seen anything defining a pretender as one who has no reasonable basis for a claim (those are usually called imposters, like when people tried passing off someone as one of the Princes in the Tower). In almost every instance pretenders are the result of some overthrow of a prior regime. The closest claim I've seen to a pretender with no real claim is the Carlist claim in Spain which more resembles a situation where the succession law was changed, and the new pretender didn't like that a unfavorable succession law was passed, but at least they presented a claim that the law was not properly modified. Emperor001 (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per previous arguments on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.71.249.229 (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ireland/Irish Clans

First, a little background. A user named TadhgORuairc made about 130 edits over nine months, the main purpose of which was to say that a person named Diolmhain Lobley was the current Duke of Meath, Rídhamhna of Ireland, Prince of Breifne Ua Ruairc and, since 22 May 2016, pretender to the throne of Ireland (see here). Celia Homeford then reverted the most egregious content. I found the mess three days ago and reverted back to the pre-TadhgORuairc version. I have since been reverted, twice, by 81.101.110.179. So, my arguments for the older version are:

1. This list is for "an aspirant or claimant to a monarchy that either has been abolished or suspended, or is occupied by another." None of the cited sources say that any of the (Irish) people in the Ireland section aspire to or claim the throne of Ireland. 81's statement that reliably sourced claims made on a person's behalf are included regardless of whether that person stakes an active claim is a straw man, since there is no reliably sourced third party claim on any of those people's behalf either. Their claim is to chieftainship of their respective clans only.
2. The idea that they aspire to or claim the thrones of Connacht, Leinster, Thomond, Desmond or Ulster is even more ludicrous. Have a look at Katharine Simms's From Kings to Warlords: those kingships died out gradually in the middle ages over the course of four centuries, as kings evolved into chieftains. The monarchies were not abolished, so it is not possible for them to have pretenders.
3. There are other nonsense statements, e.g. the idea that the High Kingship was abolished on the death of Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair in 1198, then magically resurrected by Brian Ua Néill in 1258, only to be abolished again with his death in 1260.
4. Franz, Duke of Bavaria is covered in the Britain (formerly Jacobite Pretenders to the English and Scottish Thrones, formerly Great Britain and Ireland, formerly United Kingdom) section. It is grossly misleading to have him in a separate Ireland section, since five-sixths of Ireland is now independent, and a claim to the English and Scottish crowns would not give him a claim to the Republic.
5. The old and the new versions have identical refs, but the new version changed links and plain text into red links, making it practically unreadable, as well as changing some blue links into other, less appropriate ones.
6. There is no obvious reason to move Ireland or Irish Clans to the bottom of the list.

I'm reverting again, and I would ask the IP to discuss here before reverting back. Any other opinions would be welcome. Scolaire (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Emperor001 also questioned this content in the section #Scotland, Wales, and Ireland higher up. If the citations don't say they are pretenders to the kingships, then we shouldn't either. I agree it is not a matter of whether they make an active claim themselves but whether any citations call them a claimant or pretender. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Standard of the Nguyen Dynasty (1890 - 1920).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Vatican City

I removed the following row from the "Others" section of Italy:

State	Pretender	Since	House	Claim	Succession	Abolition	Ref(s)
Vatican City	Antipope Michael	16 July 1990	Elected offices do not have houses.	An American man who claims to be Pope, and therefore Sovereign of Vatican City, in opposition to Pope Francis (and previously against Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI). He considers Vatican II illegitimate, and was elected by a self-proclaimed Conclave in 1990.	Elective	1965

I'm not sure the Vatican should be considered part of Italy for the purposes of this list, but more importantly, Antipope Michael's claim to the papacy is not "governed with respect to" the "relevant succession laws" of the Vatican, as this article's introduction says entries here should be. According to his article, Michael was elected by "a group of six laypeople, which included himself and his parents," and it sounds like even his ordination to the priesthood and episcopacy were highly irregular. I think he would be closer to the false pretenders excluded from the list according to the intro. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Welsh "Pretender"

I would like to make the point here for excluding Lawrence Jones from this list. I will make them in a bit of a scathing tone, for which I ask your forgiveness, but work is rough and I need my break to vent a bit. I deleted his name from this list due to the fact that his "claim to the throne" exists on a vastly different standard from other pretenders' standing when it comes to succession rights. Here is a "pretender" where "pretend" takes a far more familiar meaning than the one we commonly associate with dethroned dynasties. With this said, a few points to consider:

• Firstly, there is no unified Welsh throne besides the Principality of Wales. I am not sure Lawrence Jones is aware of that. This principality was hereditary to some extent within Gwynedd's House of Aberffraw, which Jones does neither refer to, nor claims descent from in any of his documents. He claims descent from an entirely made-up "Royal Welsh Nation" that, for all intents and purposes, must be resident in either his own ample posterior or in his lawyer's. He claims it as a "Descendant of Royal Welsh Nation", which is absolute balderdash. Or, not to put too fine an academic point to it: What the hell is that even supposed to mean?
• Second point: There are currently at least two relatively well-attested successor families to the House of Aberffraw and thereby the Principality of Wales, namely the Wynne and Anwyl families, which have what you would call dynastic heads and thereby theoretical claimants, or, if they were so inclined, pretenders to a Welsh throne. So far, so good. If they had made a claim to the throne of Gwynedd or Wales, they would belong in this article, but they haven't.
• Third point: the documents Jones apparantly had scanned and uploaded prove two things alone:
  • (3a) The first is that from humble Lawrence Jones, he had his name (!) changed to the massively idiotic name (!) "Tywysog Llywelyn Jones Cymru". So he is an American dude formerly called Larry who is now called the Welsh equivalent to a French "Empereur Napoleon Dubois France" (as a name!) or a German "Kaiser Friedrich Müller Deutschland" (as a name!) or a Spanish "Rey Carlos Lopez España" (as a name!). Keep in mind, that even in countries that include titles in legal names (e.g. Germany), not even the direct heirs of emperors and kings have anything more than "Highness" in their birth certificates. While the epitheton "Cymru" of the Welsh is actually a traditional medieval usage he imitates, having his legal name changed to include the title that he lays claim to shows a kind of self-aggrandisement and hot-air-inflation that I last saw in the self-styled "McCarthy Mor", Terence Francis MacCarthy. It means zilch, but it reeks of smoke and mirrors.
  • (3b) The document apparently stamped by a Japanese attorney as "ad-hoc arbitrator" (and not by a Japanese court, as is claimed in the article!) sounds grand and all, but all it does claim is that (i.) Welsh titles weren't passed on through direct primogeniture; (ii.) that if old dynasties fail, "any Welshman of the Nation, co-equal in dignity" can make a claim; (iii.) and that Larry is the heir due to his descent through a "direct and continuous masculine line" from what this document calls "the Welsh Kings or Warlords" and from the "Cenedl, or Royal Welsh Nation". In other words, zilch. The term cenedl (Gael. cenél) just means kindred. It's as hollow as claiming descent from "family". Again, let me re-state -- and I am saying this as someone who has lived in Wales and loves the country and would even like a Welsh Prince of Wales! -- that "The Royal Welsh Nation" is a made-up term that lives in exactly the same place as Robert Crumb's Mr Snoid. All the other grand titles tacked onto this newly, shockingly, and remarkably pervasively royal posterior are worthless when it comes to dynastic standing.

In other words, our very own Larry, more recently known as "Tywsy" or "Old Cym" to his friends and relations, fons honorum of at least (and indeed at most) his own bathroom, has less reason to call himself "Prince" or lay claim to any throne (apart from, again, his own toilet seat, his sovereignty over which shall not here be disputed), than that massage parlour operator who married Zsa Zsa Gabor and at least had the common decency do buy his adoptive rights from an old princess of the House of Anhalt. Or, to summarise the claim in one word: meh. 62.12.156.221 (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

There should be no pretender for this former nation. If I recall correctly the 1791 Constitution offered the throne to the then Elector Frederick Augustus I of Saxony upon the death of Stanisław II August. After Frederick Augustus it would go to whoever his daughter married, and if the male heirs of such a union died out a new king would be elected. However, his daughter never married thus had Frederick Augustus accepted the throne upon his death a new king would have been elected. As it turns out Frederick Augustus declined the throne due to international pressure thus there is no heir under the 1791 Constitution. However, the claimants to the throne of Saxony are claimants to the throne of the Duchy of Warsaw whose constitution simply stated that the King of Saxony was also Duke of Warsaw. The table should be edited accordingly to replace the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with the Duchy of Warsaw. Emperor001 (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't cited, so I've just removed it. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)