User talk:Surtsicna/Archive5

For the Titular Succession Boxes of Arthur and the Pearl

I see you have removed the titular succession box of English kings on the page of Arthur I of Brittany. But it is under no doubt that Arthur had a better claim to English throne, although at that time there was not a complete succession law (thus Angevin law preferred Arthur and Norman law preferred John), and Arthur himself openly attempted to get the throne, that meant he was surely a claimant/pretender. I suppose you do not acknowledge Arthur was the rightful successor? However, I have also noticed that you have also read and edited the article of Eleanor sister of Arthur. Yes, if I lived at that time, I would support the siblings to be monarchs rather than John and Henry III, and it was me who added the titular boxes to tell the readers they were the rightful heirs to England, albeit they never ascended the throne. In fact, neither of the siblings gave up his/her claim to the throne as far as I am concerned. But.... the box of Arthur has been removed, but that of Eleanor still exists.... Arthur had been the heir presumptive, and Eleanor was his heir presumptive.... If they were claimants/pretenders, both boxes should remain; if not, both should be removed; and should the titular succession box of Breton dukes on the article of Eleanor (also added by me) remain or not? Thanks.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello! There is certainly no doubt that both Arthur and Eleanor had better claim than John and Henry III according to today's standards. I removed the succession boxes because, as far as I know, Arthur never called himself king of England and Eleanor never called herself queen of England or duchess of Brittany. Now, they were the rightful heirs to both the kingdom and the duchy but I'm not sure we need those succession boxes. Eleanor especially didn't really claim either throne - she never formally renounced them but that doesn't give us a right to label her as a claimant. James Francis Edward is someone we can call a claimant because he actively claimed the crowns and the titles of his father - much unlike Arthur and Eleanor. Surtsicna (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be difficult for the captive princess to claim her rights actively.... In 1214 she accompanied John during his campaign to France to scheme against Alix of Brittany, but I could not tell whether she was willing to do so. Whatever, I think I can be sure that she had been styled Countess of Richmond, at least. I found quite some sources referring to her as "Countess of Richmond" or simply "c. Richmond". If there was any doubt — did she use this title till 1219 when it was granted to Pierre or some time before the year?Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

she styled herself Queen of France

We have to keep the claim because Anne kept the claim. And we don't include Supreme Governor because it's not a regnal title. Not quite sure what it is actually, but it's not regnal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"Lord High Admiral" isn't a regnal title either and when you think about it, she didn't reign as Queen of France so the French title can't really be considered regnal. We could always put it like this:

if it weren't unneccessary due to the fact that she was not significant as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, just like she wasn't significant as "claimant" to the French throne. The succession boxes for titles in pretence have a purpose in articles like those about her half-brother, who is significant for being a pretender and who actively claimed thrones. But when it comes to Anne, who was "Queen of France" just because she was also Queen of England (much like being Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith) and whose "claim" to France is just a piece of trivia, the succession box becomes redundant and pointless. Surtsicna (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Charles VI as King of Serbia

In regards to this one of your edits:

1) He was the self-proclaimed King of Serbia; i.e. he did style himself as such and present that as his personal title 2) He was a legitimate claim-holder to the title of Serbia; he had succeeded that claim from his ancestors in the House of Habsburg, ever since Ferdinand I had inherited the claim in 1526 from the Jagiellon dynasty (and the claim goes backwards across the Hunyadi family to also include two previous Habsburg monarchs who had laid that claim, and with all the inter-dynastic monarchs across the Angevin dynasty all the way to King Emeric of the Arpad family, who had first assumed the title in 1203) 3) At the moment during his reign, Charles VI had had no contestants to his throne - whether legitimate or illegitimate; therefore can be also considered as the legitimate claim-holder, i.e. automatically the legal one. 4) Charles VI not only bore the title, but also reigned over the Kingdom of Serbia - one of the crownlands of the Habsburg monarchy with its borders and full institutions just like any other (e.g. Hungary) and was thus not only de facto king, but also de jure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVNOJist (talk • contribs) 00:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Simpson family

For the record, I have given policy based explanations as to why I believe a family tree is unnecessary. You, on the other hand, have simply been reverting me because I had the audacity to revert your edit without personally giving you a long explanation. Reverting policy-based edits because you dislike them is called being unconstructive. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you only mentioned the policy after I warned you that you would be reported for refusing to discuss and the policy you mentioned is completely irrelevant (neutral point of view?). Secondly, the actual policy is to discuss. Surtsicna (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You obviously didn't bother to read what I linked you to. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 12:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You cannot know that. You, however, hadn't bothered to reply to the discussion for 11 months - and that's quite provable. Surtsicna (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So? I undid the edit, and for weeks nobody cared. There was no point in going to the talk page at the time because these things usually end in me talking to myself. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

When you first undid the edit, I immediately noticed and started the discussion. You ignored it and I reverted your reversion.[1] It then took you 4 months to remove the family tree again, but this time so sneakily that I didn't notice right away.[2] Months later, I noticed and readded it,[3] saying that I was "readding content that was quite rudely removed weeks after I had started a discussion about it which had ended without a response". Again, you completely ignored me and reverted without any explanation whatsoever and, of course, without bothering to respond.[4] Just when I thought you couldn't get any more rude and arrogant, you said that there was "nothing to discuss".[5] I am simply shocked by your behaviour - precisely, your assumption that the other party doesn't deserve your respond because you assume that you're absolutely right. Anyway, I don't say this often but please don't lie. My on-going pleas for discussion made it quite clear that your respond would not have gone unnoticed. Surtsicna (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You were pleading for a discussion, yet you never left me a message on my talk page... -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Which guideline or policy advises me to beg you on your talk page? You were aware that I had started the discussion and you chose to ignore it. Of course I would not come to your talk page to beg you. Surtsicna (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you even read what I said? For the majority of those 11 months I was unaware of the discussion (call me a liar if you like, but it's true. I'm often rushing through my watchlist, so I don't always see the edit summaries. Other times, I would be visiting the article for whatever reason, I'd see the section re-added, then remove it without looking at the page history). It may not be a policy, it's common sense: if you want to start a discussion with someone, it makes sense to notify that person on their talk page. Otherwise, you run the risk of that person never noticing your discussion. Should I have made a greater effort to see if there was a discussion? Perhaps. Should you have directly informed my on my talk page so that I would know for sure? Without a doubt. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Was it or was it not impossible for you to revert this edit without reading: "readding content that was quite rudely removed weeks after I had started a discussion about it which had ended without a response"? You did not just notice that the family tree was there and removed it. Had you done so, your edit summary would not have said: "Reverted edits by Surtsicna (talk) to last version by ToonsFan". You opened the page history, saw the edit and certainly read the summary and then reverted it without any summary except the automatic message. But whatever, really. Surtsicna (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I realize that our debate got rather heated, and I do apologize for that. You're just doing what you think is best for the article, as am I. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at House of Kotromanić

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

---

• Editing of Balkan topics that appears to be ethnically motivated can lead to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC. Open a WP:Request for comment or use other means of dispute resolution to determine the proper nationality (if any) to ascribe to this royal house.

---

• Edit summaries that, while reverting the article, explain that it's the duty of the other party to obtain consensus are especially ironic.

Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Do I misinterpret this chart?

Thank you for the warning. I do not realise, however, why my edit summary was ironic. Doesn't Wikipedia:Consensus say that those who wish to make a major and controversial change to a previously stable version of the article are those who should obtain consensus? Anyway, I tried to make a compromise by removing the Ethnicity/nationality parameter altogether but User:Rokonja would accept no compromise. Who should deal with that now that I've been warned to abstain from editing it? Or is the article going to label them as Croats forever? Surtsicna (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The diagram at right contains no arrow supporting the revert that you made. (You should now be in the 'Seek a Compromise' box, waiting for a response on talk). Consider starting a WP:Request for comment at Talk:House of Kotromanić. It seemed to me that an edit war along ethnic lines was getting started on this article. Anyone who participates in a good faith discussion and supplies proper sources would be helping to cure the problem. Your comment about Queen Victoria's ethnicity I thought was well-argued. If you are willing to discuss but the others are not, and if they continue to revert, they may be sanctioned under WP:ARBMAC. By continuing to revert prior to reaching consensus, you would put yourself in the same category as them. An admin would then have to sanction you along with everyone else if he thought an edit war was occurring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood the chart then; I thought it was the other user who was supposed to be in the Seek a compromise box because it was not me who altered the Previous consensus. Anyway, I am willing to discuss. As you can see, nobody bothered to respond to my arguments on the talk page. I am concerned about leaving the claim that they were Croats while waiting for a reasonable response to my two-year-old argument that most certainly won't come from Rokonja, judging by his edit summaries and this edit which I am quite sure was made by him; may I remove the parameter altogether while discussion is taking place, so that the article says nothing about their nationality or ethnicity for the time being? In fact, I'd be happy to leave the article without it, as a compromise. It simply does not feel right to leave the article in this biased state. Surtsicna (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a little-viewed page (9 visits a month). It won't hurt to wait for a resolution. If you open a WP:Request for comment, it can be advertised and this may bring in outside opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I will try the RfC but I am afraid it will turn into yet another nationalistic dispute. It is inevitable unless I manage to phrase the question properly. Wish me good luck! Thank you for your help. Surtsicna (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Living queens consort

Category:Living queens consort, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Surtsicna. You have new messages at WhiteWriter's talk page.
Message added 16:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Surtsicna. You have new messages at Talk:House_of_Kotromanić.
Message added 18:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WhiteWriter ^speaks 18:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

s boxes

You included that (accidentally?) in the middle of a series of edits by a user who added unsourced material and removed some sourced, and changed wording of some sentences, so you could have concluded that the call for discussion was directed at him. I didn't pay attention to those boxes at all. I don't care if they're there or not. Vladimir (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Surtsicna (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If they're a standard thing, then thank you for including them :) Vladimir (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Page moves

Hello Surtsicna!

Lately, several pages of royalty have been subjected to name changes by the same user. The pages have been moved from a name with a title to simply a row of first names. Example: Princess Marianne of the Netherlands have been moved to Wilhelmina Frederika Louise Charlotte Marianne. I believe pages can not just be moved without discussion? All articles of royalty must be consistent and if one is changed all the rest must also be changed. This change is also a bad choice, I think. They are many with the same first names, which makes it hard to separate them. Further more, the title "Wilhelmina Frederika Louise Charlotte Marianne" say nothing about the person except the gender, while the title "Princess Marianne of the Netherlands" directly say that this is a Dutch Princess. This user changes names to ones that makes the articles much harder to distinguish from each other than the original ones, so this must be stopped.

I know that you are interested in articles about royalty and often work with them. I am positive that this user have the very best intentions, she/he are simply just ignorant, nothing worse, so I have tried to explain this to them. Perhaps you can do a better job, as you seem to be well informed about policy. In any case: I have not been able to undo the name changes for some reason. Can you move the pages back to their original names? --Aciram (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for notifying me. I naturally agree with you so I immediately reverted those moves. Let's see how the user will react. Surtsicna (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Abbesses of Quedlinburg

Hi Surtsicna, I noticed that you seem to be translating those articles from the German WP. Please remember to include the literature mentioned over there and put it into the References section. And what is more important, a translation of Wikipedia content from other language editions requires an attribution on the talk page to keep the GFDL and GNU licenses of the original text. Please see {{translated page}} which must be placed on the talk page of such articles. Regards, De728631 (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for informing me. I have been translating them from both Italian Wikipedia and German Wikipedia. How do I proceed if I translate from two Wikipedias? Surtsicna (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Just add two templates, one for each source page. De728631 (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Re margaret theresa move

since this is a move back to a previous name, i think it wise to give it another 7 days. Be patient, WP is a work in progress. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you willing to fix all the double-redirects that will be created at Margarita Teresa of Spain if this move is made? --Mike Cline (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am, though I was not aware that fixing double redirects is the job of the user who requested the move. Surtsicna (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Surtsicna - Sorry I didn't get back here sooner--travelling. I made the move and fixed the double-redirects (there weren't as many as I guessed there would be.) Fixing things is everyone's job in WP and its important to know that when an article title is moved and moved again, the potential for double-redirects is high. I like to the ask the requester to help fix them when there are a lot of them. In this case, it wasn't necessary. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll fix them if I somehow happen to find one :) Surtsicna (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Surtsicna, I replied to your message in Margarita Teresa/Margaret Theresa Discussion page.(DanyMountbatten (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC))

Please check again. (DanyMountbatten (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)).

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Surtsicna for helping to promote Ivan Sratsimir of Bulgaria to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Royal Family

Dear Surtsicna, this seems to be also your subject :-) I made some edits at the page Spanish Royal Family in which I describe the membership of the Royal Family, together with links to official sources that describe the status and who is the members of the royal family. Could you please check my edits whether they are appropriate and sufficient? Thanks! Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for me informing me. I've reworded a sentence in the lede but I am not sure what is meant by "descendants" - surely, not all descendants of the monarch can be members of the royal family, otherwise it would become huge and unsustainable. For example, I doubt all the King's great-grandchildren will be members of the royal family. There must be a more precise source than the one already included, or a source that explains or interprets the regulation. Furthermore, I think the section "The king and queen" ought to go. We have seperate articles about them, and the section is simply redundant to those articles. Surtsicna (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Louise Lehzen

I thought you might like to be made aware of Talk:Baroness Louise Lehzen#Requested move where I've proposed reverting your change of 12 January 2009. Opera hat (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy 2012!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I am very sorry for having failed to respond! I have had some problems logging in, to say the least. At one point, I simply stopped trying. Anyway, I wish you all the best in the remaining three quarters of the year :D Surtsicna (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering what happened to you. Welcome back!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor

Why did you remove Croatia and Serbia from that article in the title box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SavoRastko (talk • contribs) 21:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Pragmatic Sanction of 1713

Do you happen to have your sources handy for this? I'm a little concerned about what the date in April was: it said the 19th before, which is how it's on the selected anniversaries for today, but you changed it to the 9th. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 08:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Shahnaz Pahlavi

Hi Amsal. I had cause to remove some little nonsense from this page several weeks ago: having just gone back to check it out, I saw you had to since remove a considerable pile of edits (from one editor) that had combined to make the most slobberingly bizarre article on a living person that I've seen in quite some time. Some edits were just absurd, some contained long-lost hints of factual accuracy that had since mutated into pop-culture wreckery and all surpassed the Cringeworthy Mark on the Ass-Kissing Scale and would be worthy of discreet preservation in some Wikipedia vault of horrors (like my sandbox...). Anyway, just to let you know I felt I had to put a warning and a few lines at User talk:Qais13 and will be keeping watch, as they seem to have added sundry similar samples of nutty nonsense to and about certain royals and Lady Gaga. All the best, Plutonium27 (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I've just seen you've taken it to WP:AN. Good work, Plutonium27 (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Added my Support to block request at WP:AN. Let's hope this one wraps up fast. And you have got it exactly right, those edits really are at that don't-let-facts-stop-you, entire-fantasy-world Conservapedia level. In fact, take a look at April's entries on [6] (Fundies Say the Darndest Things) - there are a couple of Andy Schlafy replies on Conservapedia talk pages that are just classics! In one of them he seems to be disputing the existence of atoms because he's never actually seen one. As he makes his money by home-schooling kids (!!!f**k&*%"!!!), I think Princess Pahlavi's 2.1 in Humanitarianism from the Oxford University in London would instantly qualify her to be on Schlafy's staff (should her humanitarian job with Lady Gaga not work out...).

PS Sorry I scared you by using your name - I just took a quick look at your user page so I had an idea of who I was talking to...btw I'm Kaye (like the letter, rhymes with way). Plutonium27 (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well done - Qais13 has been indef blocked (and Admin User:Floquenbeam admits his puzzlement at just wtf she is on about)! Let's hope that's the last of it, although I do intend to archive the really on-form sections. Eventually, I did discern something of an editing pattern:

• 1) chose random bits of (modern or historical) royal (or Lady Gaga) facts
• 2) mix with last night's dreams and favourite bored-at-school pop-princess fantasies
• 3) add to an article at will.

(That Qais13 is a teenage girl is something I'm prepared to bet my beer money on). I suspect she'd been browsing somewhere like [7] - generally an excellent source - and from there picked up appealing-looking historical royal fragments to lay the bullshit on.

And I agree, Conservapedia is actually not funny - it is distressing. Especially that people use it (and other sources of mendacious insanity, which the well-funded American Right has ensured plenty of) to not only support their own world view but to indoctrinate (AKA homeschool) the kids. I came of age in the 1980s when in the UK, as elsewhere in Western Europe, we put a stop to the fascists and their allies. As these groups have returned - this time dropping the overt racism and wearing nice suits - so I can see how much of their agenda is allied with the ideals of the Tea Party and the Christian Right. And it makes me sick.

BTW I get the apparent irony of a good socialist like me interested in royals but it is pre-1914 European royalty which interest me. For example, it is not possible to understand the cause of WWI without knowing the characters of and relationships between the rulers at the time. Likewise the last Shah: crucial to post-WW2 events in the area and beyond (eg the Oil Crisis). Whereas I don't give a toss about the current bunch or their bloody weddings. Anyway, I don't have a webpage (got a half-alive LJ somewhere which I may resurrect and am around a bit on a couple of <non-Wiki> forums) so if you feel like more talk (and I'd like to hear your take) email me: kayekaye@hotmail.co.uk

Oh, and I've copied the conversation from your page and edited it into mine, to keep it all in one place. You're welcome to do likewise. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'll miss Qais13 a bit. Reading her nonsense was somewhat amusing. At least she did not fight back. I've been editing for a long time (more than four years, it seems) and during that time, I've encountered lots of mad people and a few very mad people. One of them was trying (unsuccessfully in the end but still too successfully, if you ask me) to use Wikipedia as a ground for promoting himself as de iure King of Bosnia and Grand Duke of Something (it made so little sense that I cannot remember it anymore) and his family as "Bosnian Royal Family". He started out slowly, almost unnoticeably, distorting minor historical facts, before finally proceeding to create an entire alternate history and series of events (including Anglo-Serbian conspiracy) that made his family the rightful heirs to the imaginary throne of Bosnia. He had it all planned out so well that I had to fight him as if he were a legitimate editor. If you'd like to read more to entertain yourself, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnian Royal Family and Talk:History of Bosnia and Herzegovina#1535 or 1527 instead of 1463. Every now and then, I take a moment to thank God, Mother Nature, the Universe and whatnot, for keeping me away from such lunatics ever since.

I look forward to hearing from you again. Surtsicna (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Margaret as heir presumptive to the throne of Norway?

Hello! Do you have any source to support your claim that Margaret, Maid of Norway, was heir presumptive to the throne of Norway? I find it rather dubious but I could be wrong. Thanks. Surtsicna (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

My claim? I didn't write that. I don't have any sources to consult right here, but I would have thought that the king's brother would have been considered heir presumptive over the king's child daughter. The king's other daughter wasn't considered his heir, so I wouldn't suppose Margaret would have been considered as such either. --Tokle (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry. I thought you had inserted that information. I now see it was another user. So, do you agree that she should be removed? In fact, I believe that only heirs apparent and heirs presumptive to kings who reigned after 1665 should be included because succession laws were rather unclear before Frederick III declared the crown of Norway hereditary. Surtsicna (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Catherine of Naples

I've been checking all over Internet and all I've come up with is that she was born between late June 1348 and June 1349. Nothing else. This surprises me as well seeing she was the only child of the reigning queen of Naples who was very powerful at that. I was hoping I'd fine something. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Titles

About Diana, Camilla, Sarah, Sophie and of course Masako you were right but I have a question. Princess Takamado is a member of the Japanese Imperial Family. Her husband died in 2002, but her title didn't change and already her title is Princess Takamado not Dowager Princess Takamado or something else, so she holds the title in her own right, doesn't she? Keivan.f^Talk 06:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer on my talk page. Keivan.f^Talk 11:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

OK! I think you are right again! But we shouldn't just correct the articles of British consorts we should correct the articles of all consorts of all the world, so what should we do? Keivan.f^Talk 12:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

edit summary

I just wanted to say: your edit summary on the Queen Mother page, " Besides, Philip is not a queen", made me laugh. Indeed. Brian | (Talk) 15:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I am glad it brought a smile on your face. Though, to be fair, if you consider all his whining over the years, he might as well be one. Surtsicna (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Teresa Cristina

Hi, Surtsicna. I believe there has been quite awhile since we talked for the last time. How have you been? I had to undone some of your edits on Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies for the sake of consistency to all other Brazilian royalty articles. I kept the "List of Brazilian consorts" wikiink and the removal of the mention of "Kingdom of Naples". I hope you won`t mind. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In Brazil, following Portuguese tradition, a male consort would receive the title of King (in Portugal) or Emperor (in Brazil) once a child had been born from the marriage to the reigning queen or empress. This is why we had Dom Pedro III of Portugal and Fernando II of Portugal. Under Chapter IV ("Of the succession of the Empire"), article 120 says: "The marriage of the heiress presumptive of the crown shal be done under the will of the Emperor; if there is no Emperor at the time, when dealing with this marriage, it will not be allowed to occur without the approval of the General Assembly [the Parliament]. Her husband will not take part in the government, and will only be called Emperor after he has a son or daughter with the Empress." This is what the letter of the Constitution said. However, the monarchy fell in 1889, before Isabel became Empress. Nonetheless, monarchists treated him as the Emperor after Pedro II's death. Here is a letter written by João Alfredo in 1909, who as prime minister abolished slavery in Brazl in 1888, and became a leading monarchist after 1889: "Madam, I have the honor of bringing to Y. I. M. [Isabel], to the Emperor [Gaston] and to the Princes my wishes that the projected marriage of D. Pedro [eldest son of Isabel] give him the happiness preferred by his big heart ..." Source: Santos, Armando Alexandre dos. A legitimidade monárquica no Brasil. São Paulo: Artpress, 1988, p.168. Since it is a custom in Wikipedia to treat pretenders under their titles had they been monarchs, I'm merely following it (although I personally disagree: if a country isn't a monarchy anymore no one can regard himself as prince/emperor/king). --Lecen (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually the only person who is writing articles about Brazilian imperial history. I want to improve Maria Leopoldina's and Amelié's articles one day. They shouldn't, however, be taken as the standard form. I want to finish Pedro I, and then move to other far more important articles. Well, I need time, and as you know, finding time for real life business and Wikipedia is hard. The articles you mentioned were written by DrKiernan. In fact, I believe 95% of the FAs about royals (all British or British-related) were written by him. That's the way he prefer, and I respect it, but I shouldn't be oblised to add a "of the Two Sicilies" and it would look like a surname. --Lecen (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the idea that you're following my history log. Our conversation is over. --Lecen (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)