Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:06, 22 April 2016

Politics Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Icelandic titles

The Icelandic titles have been listed here as: Ruling prince/ss: Fursti / Furstynja Blood prince/ss: Prins / Prinsessa

I have never encountered the word "Furstynja" in Icelandic, but I have came across a "Furstinna", so which is the actual title?

I removed the following sentence, since I belive Prince-Bishops were relatively usual on the European Continent (or at least in the Holy Roman Empire), and hence it is not too representative to give a rare English example. Maybe an article on Prince-Bishops would do better, but...

In England historically there was a Prince-Bishop of Durham.

-- Ruhrjung 10:24 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There should be a Princess diambiguation, as there is the obvious term, plus future pages Princess (cruise line), Princess Princess (movie, 1969), Princess (movie, 1999), Princess (movie, 2003), as well as the English names of many foreign movies that could easily deserve a page, and Japanese movie score composer Princess Princess. Do I note this on the prince page? -- user:zanimum

What is the minimum Size for a Realm to be called a King?

I don't think so. This is a UAE comment test.

MW.

Prince of the Blood

This term properly refers to a rank, rather than a title, just as "peer" or "grandee" refers to a person holding a relatively high place in a particular monarchy's legal and/or social hierarchy. Yet the term was not used as a title or form of address, but as a descriptor. The French prince du sang royal was a member of a class of dynasts ranking below the King's agnatic grandsons, but above the so-called princes légitimés or, in the Parlement of Paris, above ducal peers. Those who possessed that rank were usually known and addressed by a unique territorial title, in post-medieval Latin Europe and Scandinavia, most often a dukedom (e.g. Duke de Berry, Duke av Sodermanland, Duke di Taranto, Duke de Beja). See http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/frprince.htm#intro

In Germany, all males of a reigning family had an equal right to the dynastic title (below the titles of emperor, king and elector, which were offices that, even when hereditary, could only be held by one individual at a time). Only gradually, towards the 19th century, did German cadets exchange their dynasty's traditional title (duke, margrave, landgrave, or Fürst) for that of prince (Prinz) -- when they did so at all. Until 1918 all or some junior members of the royal houses of Bavaria, Saxony and Wurttemberg, and of the grand ducal houses of Mecklenburg and Oldenburg, used duke as their titular prefix. Nonetheless, they ranked as princes of the blood in their respective monarchies and were treated as such internationally. Although "Prince of the Blood Royal" and "Prince of the Blood Imperial" are examples of the most common descriptors added to this rank, no rule is violated in referring to members of reigning houses that are below kingly rank as "Princes of the Blood", though a descriptor is less commonly appended to the term. Lethiere 07:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Modification of inaccurate and useless parenthesis in Romanian titles

I have edited the page because in Romanian, "cneaz" and "crai", words with Slavic etymology, have a different meaning than prince(maybe "crai" is very close to that meaning). "Cneaz" was a title taken by a few local rulers sometimes near the X century A.D. There was also the title of "Jupan" similar to that. These titles are never used outside that scope and don't have the meaning of "prince" although the word in Slavic languages has that meaning. "Crai" is an archaism used only in old folklore fairy tales with the meaning of "king" or "emperor". A diminutive of "crai", "craisor", is used with the meaning of "prince". I found the parenthesis useless and inaccurate in the context.

Cyrilic?

The section about Prince in various languages uses Greek alphabet for Greek, but leaves out cyrilic completely. I added it for Serbian, I hope people with more knowledge about other languages using cyrilic will add it, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzigor (talk • contribs) 22:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Prince of the Blood redirect

Currently "Prince of the Blood" redirects here, i plan on making an article for the novel Prince of the Blood and i was wondering if it is ok to use the redirect and change it to the novel and then link the topic of prince of blood here from the page:

eg :For the courtesy title, see Prince#Prince of the blood, or something like that.

Thanks, Salavat (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If anything changes, I think it should be disambiguation, but I would prefer to keep it as a redirect here. Prince of the blood has been used for centuries to describe royal princes by birth. Charles 05:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We could always do a thing like Prince of Blood redirects here, for the novel by Raymond E. Feist see Prince of the Blood. Whats the template for that, or do you think a disambiguation would be easier? Salavat (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I prefer the template, this is it: {{Redirect|Prince of the blood|novel by Raymond E. Feist|Prince of the Blood (novel)}} --- Charles 03:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, ill use that when i create the page, thanks for your input. Salavat (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What is this process called...

Basically, my question is what is the process called when titles were reassessed from the more grandiose titles to what they are today? For example... when the kings of Early Middle Ages Wales went from using the king title to that of prince in the 12th century, for instance. Or when the rank of earl was subjected to that of Duke. I know the reasons for such reassessments, but not the actual term. Or when the Dukes of Aquitaine began using the king title in the late dark ages, then refered to as count in some sources in later centuries, then promoted again to that of Ducal rankings. Simularly for that of the Breton title, it went from King to Prince to Duke, while some French sources for the same periode called them Count of Brittany. I hope I did not thoroughly confuse anyone! hehe.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 08:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I found it, the process is called Mediatization♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

non-ruling Princes

This article could use more information on non-ruling princes who aren't the heir apparent. While it does mention prince consorts, and the Hispanic infante, and a little bit on the French Prince du Sang. which do have their own articles. however, I have trouble finding info on royal children in Germanic and Scandinavian families. Also, it should be noted that prince is also used for the children of dukes(ie. Prince Albert) Also, the title sometimes extends to grandchildren and their children. Additionally some Germanic nations use titles other than prince (Duke in Bavaria, Archduke of Austria). 98.206.155.53 (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Prince of the blood

This article has a section titled Prince of the blood, but nowhere in that section is the term "prince of the blood" even used, let alone defined or explained. The section title is unrelated to the topic of the section. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Prince's prince?

What is prince's son? The first one can be crown prince or something like that, but what is the second one? Is it the same than head of state, prince? 82.141.127.112 (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A prince's son is usually a prince. --Tataral (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hatnote

I don't think we need the musician in the hatnote; a link to the disambiguation page with other uses is sufficient. This article is the main article on a very common term with an enormous amount of uses, many of them far more prominent than the musician, who is only of interest to a select audience. That means the treshold for being included individually in the hatnote is very high. We don't even include The Prince in the hatnote! --Tataral (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Removed that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: Tataral started the discussion here as a result of a WP:BRD situation: The musician had been in the hatnote for a while (a few years, I think), Tataral removed it, and I added it back. Every revision of the page up until late 2014 that I have seen so far has Prince (musician) in the hatnote. Since it has been present in the hatnote for so long, consensus will need to be established to remove it. I'll post a note on Talk:Prince (disambiguation) and Talk:Prince (musician) in a moment to help establish consensus for this change. Steel1943 (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

How will it help neutral consensus to consult his fans? He was a great man of music, yes, but this hatnote is ostentatious and, as such, I find it embarrassing to his legacy. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: Respective pages should be informed of this discussion, regardless of the implications of who may participate in the discussion as a result of the notification. Your concern is akin to a preemptive full protection of the article for the letter "A" because it could be a vandalism target without any vandalism actually happening yet just because some examples of profanity start with that letter. Luckily, Misplaced Pages is not a vote, and most regular editors here can easily identify single-purpose accounts so that their "votes" do not affect closing consensus. Steel1943 (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop directing your comments at me! "Your concern is ... etc". It's possible to have a discussion on facts without personalizing it. I'm not here to defend myself, but to discuss what's best for this article, and in my opinion, the hatnote you restored, ain't. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: ...And I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just pinging you since you responded to me to let you know I responded to you. You have no reason to be defensive. Steel1943 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop directing your comments at me personally (2nd request)! I have never mentioned you by name. This discussion is on my watchlist, so I don't need to be poked. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You possess an amazing amount of irrational defensiveness, but okay, deal. Steel1943 (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete it. The musician doesn't overshadow all other meanings. One link to the dab page is fine. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• It should stay in. The musician is a significant, but not primary, usage. Readers who are looking for information on the singer are likely to come here and type "prince" in the search box, more likely than most other uses; we should help them get where they want to go, rather than sending them to another list where their intended target is the 13th item down the page. This is what hatnotes are for. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Start-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles