Talk:Death and funeral of Constantine II of Greece

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Thanks

@Matthijs1808: Hey, thanks for your contributions to this article! Hopefully we can expand it together as we get more information on the funerals, its guests and more worldwide reactions. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for fixing my less handy Wikipedia work whenever i might make it look a bit messy, im keeping an eye on twitter also to see if more Royal families comment, we also have no official statement from the Greek royal family or announcement of his death. Matthijs1808 (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Thanks for anything that you do for me. Yes, me too... Hopefully we will hear something from them soon. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So i tried to find a picture of the hospital to add to the article sadly Wiki commons has none and i have no good idea how to add one. Matthijs1808 (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be handy if we had one. Sadly I'm not in Greece, so I can't take a photo myself, haha! - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
same issue here haha Matthijs1808 (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also watching out for British royal statements due to, not only the blood connection, but also the fact that Constantine is William's Godfather and William is one of Constantine's children's Godfather. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same for me, as a Dutchmen im watching the Dutch Royal Family, since he is also the Godfather of Prince Constantijn of the Netherlands who is the youngest brother of the current King and 4th in the line of succesion.
He hence also knew the still living former Queen Beatrix. Matthijs1808 (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right. Royal family trees; the gift that keeps on giving! - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its always interesting, btw you think we shoudl mention beside his role as (former) king and head of his house his Golden medal at the 1960 Olympic games? Matthijs1808 (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about that, as well as his Danish titles, however I am worried it will be removed as it doesn't have anything to do with his death or funeral, but rather with him. So up to you really. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
had the same worry actually Matthijs1808 (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the guest list to be filled in as it is announced, for now his family wich we can estimate to be there. for Queen Sofia i was unsure where to add her. Matthijs1808 (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral Guests

I expect members of the british and danish royal family to attend. 84.167.80.80 (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So do i but without it official we cant add it. Matthijs1808 (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Richiepipis there a confirming source on the attendance of the King and Queen of Sweden yet? Matthijs1808 (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthijs1808 it is on their official calendar, as this webpage will change I was waiting for a news article about their attendance to cite. Richiepip (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Richiepip alright I had not found it but might have been looking wrong, maybe add it as a source Matthijs1808 (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no flags, for the members of the former Greek royal family. The Kingdom of Greece ceased to exist in 1973. GoodDay (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for creating the article!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flagicons in Non-reigning royals section

Recently, there was an RFC on

Talk:List of dignitaries at the state funeral of Elizabeth II#RFC: Flag icons on Members of non-reigning royal houses that decided against using flagicons for members of non-reigning royal families, with one of the arguments being that since they are not ruling, they are not representing a country. Does that logic apply to this page as well? 2601:249:9301:D570:CD6C:834:267F:2D59 (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

It does apply here & there's no need to have another RFC on this. The kingdoms of France, Romania, Serbia etc, haven't existed for decades & more. GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The previously contested edit was in the funeral guests section. The RFC was essentially asking if they should be included there.2601:249:9301:D570:CD6C:834:267F:2D59 (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding me. The RFC you mentioned applies to this page. The former royals should not have flags. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was saying that you only removed the flags from the reaction section, not the funeral guest section, which is where the dispute started. 2601:249:9301:D570:CD6C:834:267F:2D59 (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed them all now. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to argue anything, but shouldn't at least the Kingdom of Greece flag remain? The whole article is about the final king of that state... - Therealscorp1an (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say no, as the Kingdom of Greece no longer exists. The Greek government isn't even going to give Constantine II a state funeral, even though he's a former Greek head of state. GoodDay (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay yet the reason there is a article about him and so many heads of state attend is the fact he was King of the Kingdom of Greece. the fact that the Greek government shows the amount of disrespect they do doesn't take away he led a nation and the flag of that nation should not be banned.
ofcourse my personal view is that taking the flags away for non reigning houses is petty in itself and they should have them or at least the flag of the Kingdom they used to rule, like Greece where the flag is different form the one used today. Matthijs1808 (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter 'why' the Greek people chose to abolish the monarchy, confirming the move made by the military government. What matters is 'they' chose to remain a republic. The Kingdom of Greece ended in 1973. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why it is such a big deal if the flags (of which their royal families REPRESENT) remain in the article. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So it is about making sure republicanism is represented? This is a Royal funeral of a head of state of a nog longer existing nation. This nation had a different flag from it successor and thus there should be no problem in using it and even if it had been the same as with other monarchs attending but non-reigning they are former rulers of a nation and thus there is nothing wrong. Its seems to me like a anti monarchism messure more then a sensible one.
A former President in the US can be voted out of office after a term but they also get the flag since they where head of state. Matthijs1808 (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the US, the polity they led is still extant, which is different from the case of abolished monarchies. Losing an election is different from the form of government being completely overhauled.2601:249:9301:D570:E902:46B:D28:AC6A (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flagicons in 'Others' reaction section

USER:Therealscorp1an, I removed two national flags and paraphrased a long list of meaningless names, since neither of the two people are in any sense at all representing the respective countries. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is speaking on behalf of the Orthodox church, not Turkey and the American is speaking on behalf of himself and a US-Greek museum. The other 'flagged' people in the article can all be meaningfully be characterised as representing the country or org that is flagged. You reverted giving the reason "the flag and name should remain as they are from Turkey and the United States respectively. This matches other articles". In my experience, the only places where flags are used are where the person in some sense 'represents' the country - eg politicians/heads of state or international sporting etc competitors. Your revert also restores a fairly meaningless naming of all the members of the ex-king's family to whom sympathies were extended by the person from US. Pincrete (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pincrete: Okay, we’ll how about we remove the names and just include the flags? This matches the way that other articles to do it, which is why I wrote it like that. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a textual improvement, but what sense do the flags make when the individuals are (in no sense) representing the country? Especially the Patriarch, who IS the head of the Eastern Orthodox church and was presumably speaking in that capacity, rather than as a 'Turk'. The flags create a false impression IMO when they are not representative of anything about the country. Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC) … Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela doesn't have flags for anyone EXCEPT those responding as heads of governments/countries. Even trans-national organisations (inc the U.N. , NATO and the Commonwealth + IOC + sporting and cultural orgs), don't have flags. Individuals certainly don't. Pincrete (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles such as Reactions to the death of Bhumibol Adulyadej and Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II (articles related entirely to the reactions) do. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Private citizens are not flagged on the 'Death of Elizabeth II' article. About 8 religious leaders are, but I find some of those equally unenlightening or borderline ridiculous. The
Anglican Church, not a representative of England, whose flag only ordinarily features in reports of football matches! Pincrete (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC) … Private citizens aren't mentioned at all in the Bhumibol Adulyadej article, only govts etc. Pincrete (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Funeral section

At the moment, the funeral section is in future tense, but once the funeral has occurred today, it will all need to be converted to past tense. I plan on doing this and splitting it into different subheadings, like in the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article. These subheadings will be Planning, Lying-in-state, Funeral and Burial. I request that no one converts the funeral section before I do. Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Anyone have some images or photos that we can put in the article to decorate it? It's a bit bland at the moment. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling @Matthijs1808, GoodDay, Richiepip, and Keivan.f:, who have all contributed quite a bit to this article, to ask if any of you have/can help with uploading photos for this article. More particularly, I think it would be great if we could get a photo of the processional, a photo of the priests at the front of the church and a photo of all the foreign monarchs sitting in row together during the ceremony. Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've no photos. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flag repetition

Do we really need to have repetitive flags? One flag will do for the Spanish royal family, the Greek government members, etc. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say so as it helps people identify where they are from, especially if it just says "Princess X". - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree for the family, but it's unnecessary on the Greeks because it repeats the sub-heading saying "Greece", which already identifies them.
Celia Homeford (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prince William

Regarding the mention in the dignitaries section, mentions of controversy seem to be outside the scope of the section. As a similar example, this edit on

List of dignitaries at the state funeral of Elizabeth II removed an aside on Joe Biden's presence because it put too much prominence on his presence over others. Given that the article already mentions controversy in relation to the decision to not give him a state funeral, if it is necessary to make reference controversies regarding Prince William's absence, it might be more suited to a separate section describing various controversies related to the funeral than a section that is mostly meant to be a list. 2601:249:9301:D570:B87F:DD59:2BF2:9E76 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

RFC on Prince William attendance controversy

There is consensus against mentioning the controversial nature of Prince William's lack of attendance. While there was not much participation in this discussion, the opposing side's arguments regarding sources were stronger. Supporters failed to prove that the sources were reliable and significant enough to include mention of the controversy. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.



There is a disagreement over whether or not mentions of controversy regarding the lack of attendance of William, Prince of Wales should be included in the "Funeral dignitaries" section, with one side saying that it is notable enough to mention and another saying that it is outside the scope of the section. Should the mentions of controversy be included on the page and if so, should it be in the "Funeral dignitaries" section or another section? 2601:249:9301:D570:6C83:1998:1B48:29B4 (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support mentoning the controversy as it is notable and was talking about by the many sources cited. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it should be mentioned in the funeral dignitaries section or should it be mentioned elsewhere in the article? 2601:249:9301:D570:6C83:1998:1B48:29B4 (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should stay in the brackets in the funeral dignitaries section, just as a small weight, so, as you brought up, there is not too much weight put in the issue. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and I think it is appropriately placed in the "dignitaries" section. If it is to be mentioned that Lady Gabriella (who, might I just add, attended the funeral in her own capacity as Constantine's goddaughter) also represented the Prince of Wales, it is absolutely relevant to also mention that William's refusal to attend personally attracted controversy and worldwide attention. If that aspect is considered too trivial, I suggest we scratch the part about Gabriella representing William altogether as surely that is too trivial as well. Cotillards (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, three of the 6 sources used to establish that there was any controversy are from 'Hello' magazine, the first of which merely relates royal fans being 'disappointed' that Charles and the William didn't attend - no mention of controversy. The second 'Hello' piece mentions the word 'controversy' once (in the title) and otherwise says nothing, the third merely records that William didn't attend the funeral. Another source is Australian and describes the PoW's absence as "Kate Middleton and Prince William mistake no one noticed" - what it describes mainly appears to be the failure of William to score a PR victory over his brother, due to the latter's book! The source doesn't record any controversy, merely a missed PR opportunity. Greek City Times 'moans' slightly sarcastically - in its gossip section - that William preferred to go to a UK youth engagement, rather than attend the funeral. Again, no 'controversy' is recorded or identified. I couldn't read the other source. I imagine that there were protocol, rather than personal preference reasons for both Charles' and William's absences (do they ever attend non-state funerals outside the UK?) but the sources given don't IMO even establish the existence of a controversy or record its nature. A small number of sources tut-tutting that William should have gone (for whatever reason) to his god-father's funeral, or asking why he didn't, doesn't establish any recordable or identifiable 'controversy'. Given the normal scale of coverage of anything involving the Windsors, one would expect much wider and clearer coverage if there had meaningfully been any 'controversy' about his/their non-attendance. Pincrete (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - The British monarch rarely attends funerals of other heads of state or former heads of state. I thought William didn't attend his god-father's funeral, because he (William) was heir-apparent to the British throne & so didn't want to upset the Greek government, which is republican. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - Per
    WP:NOTGOSSIP. NickCT (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - it's undue to call it controversy. It could be included with the mention of Prince Charles's absence, but it's more appropriate to change that part of the article to read "absence at his godfather's funeral attracted controversy media comment".
    Celia Homeford (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I assume you mean Prince William, as Charles is now King. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For what it's worth, someone else has since removed it.
2601:249:9301:D570:8553:5B7:CC53:48DB (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now someone else has added it back. 2601:249:9301:D570:8553:5B7:CC53:48DB (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Albert II

I'll bring this here, even though it shouldn't be my responsibility as per

WP:BRD. @DrKay: I am getting fed up of your reverts claiming that I didn't explain myself when I clearly did. Do not come to my talk page after two explained reverts and warn me. First of all, Albert II's sister was not at the funeral. Video evidence confirms this (unless all editors of this article have missed it, which I quite highly doubt). You also didn't format it correctly. If she was in attendance, she would be listed as her own bullet point, not in the same one as Albert II. The source also states that Prince William was coming, which is not true.l, showing that it may not be reliable. I see that you have removed all the citations of that source too, which is fair enough. Secondly, you may think that showing their relationship to each other is trivial, but it is just simply consistent among Wikipedia articles. And what constitutes that Albert II's relation should be removed, but the others' kept? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

This page is for discussing article content not contributors. There is no content of the above post which merits a response as the poster is either agreeing with me or complaining about an edit that I had already undone before his post. DrKay (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is what annoys me. There are parts of what I said that can be addressed, but you have chosen to ignore them and only respond to parts that can be countered. It occurred in this discussion as well. So, if you could, please respond to my point about including their relation in the article. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I, and two other editors, have already done so: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 10#Constantine II's relation to Albert II. DrKay (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why should just Albert II's relation be removed and not anyone else's? Again, this is the question I asked above and you didn't respond to it. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did.[1] DrKay (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, which one of Constantine II's cousins, is an in-law to Monaco's Albert II? GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954), obviously. It's really not difficult to figure out or to find multiple sources pointing it out. DrKay (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah yes. Ernest's father & Constantine II's mother, were siblings. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DrKay: Maybe my "also in a way why he came to the funeral" was a bit of original research, but, I do not understand why we should leave out Albert II's relation to Constantine, but leave everyone else's. As you said this discussion, why should we be allowed to make an exception just for him? With all the other guests having their relation included, it could look to the reader that Albert II is not related to Constantine, but that is not true. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone else seems to be related to Constantine by blood, or directly married to someone that is Constantine's cousin. Neither of those apply to Albert, who is an in-law of his cousin. Keivan.fTalk 00:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Keivan.f: He is related to him by blood, distantly. They are sixth cousins once removed if I am correct. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would prefer that to be added instead of him being described as an in-law of a cousin. Also, who was the common ancestor? Keivan.fTalk 00:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the others have closer ancestors, I have been told that Constantine and Albert's most recent one is John William Friso. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
John William Friso is the common ancestor of all European monarchs, current and former, and
WP:OR. And then there's also the point made below by DrKay. Keivan.fTalk 19:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I know my cousin's brother-in-law. I first met him at my cousin's wedding. Whenever I am invited to my cousin's house for a party, be it at Thanksgiving, Christmas or a family event, my cousin's in-laws are there. I meet them at least once a year. We are linked on facebook because I am facebook friends with my cousin and he is facebook friends with his in-laws. On facebook his in-laws pop up in my stream because he has liked or shared a post from one of them. They appear on the 'People you may know' ribbon because I am friends with him, his wife and his children and they are all friends with the in-laws. Facebook constantly urges me to connect with them. When have I ever been invited to my sixth cousin once removed's? Never. Not once. I have no clue who they are. I do not even have a vague idea of who they might be. Cousin's brother-in-law is a much closer relationship than sixth cousin once removed.
Trivial, unsourced, excessively over-detailed original research does not belong in an article. DrKay (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is it original research? And why should we use a through-marriage connection over a blood connection? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not playing your game. Asking the same question over and over in different forms is a type of
WP:IDHT). DrKay (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I've no preference as to how we describe him, or if we describe him. As long as he's listed. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is it original research? It can be proved by just using Wikipedia articles. So don't go accusing me of playing games when you're not going to answer my question. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't accused anybody of anything. PS - What question did you ask me, that you're alluding to? GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: No, sorry, I was talking to DrKay in the message above. Sorry for that mix up. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I for one think any description of their relationship could be original research since we have not even established who their most recent common ancestor is. And even then we need to take into consideration if it's worth mentioning or if it's too distant. Keivan.fTalk 02:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, we did find common ancestors for both Albert II & Constantine II. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to
WP:OR. Keivan.fTalk 23:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
This may be a bit far-fetched, but what if we just write "distant cousin" until we do find their closest relation? I say this as without any mention of them being related, it makes the reader think they are not, which is not true. This is why there is no mention of any relation next to all the Jordanian royals. This idea may seem a bit silly, but I just feel it would be misleading to make the reader think they are not related, which, as I said, is completely false. Any thoughts on this idea? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not write brother-in-law of the king's cousin? The closer relationship should be used not a distant one.
Celia Homeford (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Fine, I can agree with that. But how would it sound adding a footnote that reads something like "Also a distant cousin of Constantine's through John William Friso" or Louis IX (which ever one we decide)? I propose this as I still think it is important that the reader knows and understands that they were related though blood, even if it was distantly. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I'm not against including the relationship, it's just that we have to be sure before writing it down in a specific way. So distant cousin should be good for now to show that unlike Jordanians there is some sort of relationship. Keivan.fTalk 15:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you go back far enough they're all descended from Muhammad (Europeans and Arabs) and Noor is half-Swedish. She has European ancestry and could be a distant cousin by this sort of measure. She's not the only one either. The King of Jordan is half-British. I don't agree with its inclusion, whether as a footnote or not. It's clearly not why he was invited to the funeral and it's not relevant to the article topic.
Celia Homeford (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
That's a good point. Then they are all somehow related, so including a note on a distant relationship does not make that much sense. Keivan.fTalk 16:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not really known if the Jordanians are related, but it is that Albert is. And I thought the Muhammad myth was disproven (for Elizabeth II anyways)? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, once you go past third cousins, it probably becomes too distant of a relationship to make note of. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but if we keep the relationships of some, but disclude others, it becomes inconsistent, messy and irrational, which is what I have been saying this whole time. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, according to this, their closest relationship was sixth cousins once removed, but the source might not meet reliability standards. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that link doesn't seem to load. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I am going to add "brother-in-law of the king's

first cousin and the king's distant cousin". Any opposition to this? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Flags

@Therealscorp1an there was much discussion over the use of flagicons and Wiki links for offices in the creation of List of guests at the coronation of Charles III and Camilla, consensus was reached that they should not be used, and this format has been used for most event pages since. Also, in the case of this specific event, Queen Margrethe, for example, did not attend as a representative of the Danish state, but rather as the sister-in-law of the deceased king, and the children of the Infantas Elena and Cristina certainly were not representatives of the Spanish state, so it is therefore inappropriate to use flagicons. I am bringing this matter here as I do not wish to edit war. Richiepip (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Richiepip: Hi, thank you for discussing it. Where is the consensus? Sorry, I can't seem to find it, so do you mind linking it to me? Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_and_funeral_of_Constantine_II_of_Greece&oldid=1206779286"