Talk:List of heads of former ruling families/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

While there are some sources claim Yi Seok to be "King" or "Emperor", yet I found no direct source about when Yi Seok himself claimed to be the said titles - unlike Yi Hae-won, who had a "coronation" on Sep 29, 2006. The organization he founded, "Korean Imperial Family Cultural Foundation" (황실문화재단) was literally restoring the "culture" of the imperial family, not claiming the throne by himself. So he doesn't match the definition as a pretender; he may be active on monarchy restoration, but he is not the heir and he got good treatment because being an active royal member.

So I would like to ask those who added news about "King Yi Seok" etc., to find an article about when Yi Seok claimed to be the successor of the throne as well. - George6VI (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The articles linked state in exact words that Yi Seok is a pretender to the Korean throne, the fact that he has never specifically advocated restoring the monarchy is not a valid reason to exclude him, by that logic the entire page should be deleted as most of these pretenders have never specifically advocated for restoring the throne. - 2A02:C7F:1484:5500:F871:34ED:D1C3:6070 (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

In the Korean wiki article, namely

Wikipedia: Original Research and that's enough to undo them all. - George6VI (talk

) 00:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

In case you hadn’t noticed I had already provided a fourth source, this one has a quite directly from him claiming to be the rightful pretender to the throne. So if I were you I would stop embarrassing yourself and deleting everything. “I know many languages”, who cares, the English page even states he is a pretender so clearly you haven’t even researched it. If you remove the edit again you may have to be temporarily blocked from editing this page. - 2A02:C7F:1484:5500:6938:AFA0:897C:4541 (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

There are four sources for Yi Seok; there are only one NY Times that refers him as pretender, and the other three, although may be just supportive, never refers Yi Seok as a pretender. Also, I am adding back sources of Yi Won. - be George6VI (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Two sources refer to him as a pretender specifically, one implies it as it talks about the work he has done to restore certain royal traditions and buildings under his authority and the other like I said has a direct quote from Yi Seok himself stating he is a pretender. There can not possibly be any more information you need, it is clear you have some weird agenda against him. If you remove the edit, or any small part of the edit one more time then you WILL be blocked from editing this page. - 2A02:C7F:1484:5500:6938:AFA0:897C:4541 (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Since this is getting controversial, I hope we can get some consensus before the case escalates. The only problem about Yi Seok's claim is that he is not the first-in-line if the monarchy were to be restored (in addition to NY Times one, maybe you are talking about Yi Seok claimed that "Yi Bangja named him as the heir"?); nothing personal about him, but he restoring the monarchy doesn't really equal that he were the rightful heir. Adding the fact that he announced Andrew Lee as the "Crown Prince", this is getting more confusing. - George6VI (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I have provided four sources that prove Yi Seok is a pretender, nothing controversial about it, read my sources and you will see. I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself, admit you are wrong and move on because if this does escalate further it will only be you being blocked from editing this page because clearly you can’t be trusted. - 2A02:C7F:1484:5500:6938:AFA0:897C:4541 (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Please calm down, actually I already read four sources of them (so that may be the reason why couldn't save my convo here because we were editing this page as the same time) I admit that there were some flaws about the way I did, but that was meant to check (and trace back the origin) about why Yi Seok is considered to be one and if there's any succession relationship, other than Yi Won, between Yi Hae-won and Andrew Lee. - George6VI (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Also I will add quotes on the block of Yi Seok in case this happen again... because despite that Yi Seok is more known among the former royalties, the association he's affiliated is much minor than that of Yi Won, who has the support from the whole Jeonju Yi clan; making Yi Seok's claim rather unnoticed. - George6VI (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Yi Seok is the most popular claimant, the most recognised claimant, the most senior claimant and the most legal claimant seeing as he was named heir in a will. You are the one who needs to calm down, you have undone my edit multiple times despite the fact that I have provided valid sources. - 2A02:C7F:1484:5500:6938:AFA0:897C:4541 (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

"The most popular claimant, the most recognised claimant, the most senior claimant and the most legal claimant seeing as he was named heir in a will" That's what that news said; this is not what believed within the royal family and my sources are equally valid except that they are not in English. So it should be reasonable that both claimants are here now - George6VI (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, both, including Yi Seok. So leave it how it is now, that’s all the information needed, you don’t need to change anything or add petty comments to try and make Yi Won look more legitimate. Any petty comments you add will instantly be removed, so to avoid an edit war that will only result in you getting blocked I suggest that you end it here to avoid any of that - 2A02:C7F:1484:5500:6938:AFA0:897C:4541 (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Also for your information this very talk page defines pretender as “A pretender may assert a claim and the term is also applied to those persons on whose behalf a claim is advanced, regardless of whether that person makes the claim”, meaning your original point and reason for undoing my edit is invalid. - 2A02:C7F:1484:5500:6938:AFA0:897C:4541 (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Please don’t remove Croatia again, the two pretenders are valid as can be seen in the source provided. The Habsburgs were independently Kings of Croatia, thus Karl von Habsburg being a pretender. Aimone, Duke of Aosta was briefly King of an independent Croatia and thus his son Amedeo is a pretender.

The source states this and thus no discussion is needed. - 2A02:C7F:1484:5500:CCC4:5D8B:ED1D:C45F (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear IP,

please see our policies, i.e.

I ask because recent additions by Chisnallmarty (talk · contribs) were reverted for lack of citations. Granted, those additions were not small, and IMHO the reversion of such "bulk unsourced additions" should be reverted even if we don't remove all existing entries.

My personal recommendation: Spend the next month or so finding sources for the unsourced entries. If the effort is still ongoing in a month, extend the "deadline." When the effort "peters out" then remove what's left but document the "removal edit" here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. No unsourced entry should remain per policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. DrKay (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I added sources but they were once again removed, the problem is not me, the problem is

Juanlove5555. Chisnallmarty (talk

) 18:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

As I explained elsewhere[1], per

WP:CIRCULAR you can't source pages on wikipedia from other pages on wikipedia. You need independent, third-party reliable sources. DrKay (talk

) 18:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Then I will add them, but reliable third-party sources were also removed. Chisnallmarty (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I wish to request temporary page protection so I can add reliable third-party sources without

Celia Homeford undoing it every time. Chisnallmarty (talk

) 18:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Two Britannica sources were removed, but they say nothing about pretenders or claims to the throne or anything like. Descent is not a claim. You've already reverted 4 times in 24 hours, reverting again is not permitted under our

WP:3RR bright-line rule. Temporary semi-protection will only prevent IP edits, not edits by users, and full protection would prevent edits from you both. DrKay (talk

) 19:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, if you knew the definition of "pretender" you would know those sources were valid, and they pretenders remained on the list with no source, as well as previously added pretenders having no source. So why can other people post pretenders with no source but I can't?, and even when I do provide them they still get removed. Chisnallmarty (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I do know the definition of pretender. The sources were not acceptable. They make no mention whatever of pretenders, heirs, claims, right to the throne, line of succession, or any such thing. DrKay (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Per 2018 discussion. The term "pretender" is often used in a broader range than the nomination implies - as well as disposed monarchs & their heirs seeking restoration the term is also applied to widely recognised heirs to disposed monarchs according to the laws of succession but also to the messes of squabbling cousins regardless of whether they seek restoration or not. There is also the seemingly bizarre situation where heirs reject restoration of the throne but still assert the pretendership (and sometimes squabble the succession with cousins) largely due to the specifics of the country's society and/or relations with the current government (especially if there's property at dispute). - 2A02:C7F:1484:5500:CCC4:5D8B:ED1D:C45F (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I would like to politely ask you to unblock me from editing “Heads of former ruling families” and also restore Croatia to the list. KIENGIR removed this edit as apparently you need a “discussion” and the pretenders aren’t valid. However I provided this source https://royalcentral.co.uk/europe/croatians-asked-about-a-possible-return-of-their-monarchy-114841/ which states in exact words that the two people I added are pretenders to the throne and thus my edit was valid and no discussion is needed.

I urge you to please read through the source I provided so you can see that the information I added was valid, Croatia has one of the highest percentage of support for restoration of the monarchy so to not include it when there are multiple valid sources out there to support this claim is nonsensical. -- 2A02:C7F:1484:5500:FC60:4FA5:6689:CE55 (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Now that this article changed from the List of Pretenders to the Head of Former Ruling Families, it should be expanded with much more information because of its very vague definition. This page should include all the heads of former ruling families even when there is no claim to the throne (or active pursuing of it), which was the idea of the previous article.

A few examples:

• The Duke of Cumberland is a former head of the ruling House of Hannover in the United Kingdom, since the ruling family changed after Victoria and he's the head of the former ruling family.
• The Romanov family, represented by Andrew Romanov is not the current pretender (or claimant) to the throne and does not state itself as the head of the previous ruling family, while Maria Vladimirovna and Karl Emich of Leiningen are official claimants.
• The head of the Petrópolis branch of the Imperial House of Brazil, Pedro Carlos doesn't have any claim and even publicly stated this, while the head of the Vassouras Branch has a formal claim recognized by public statements of the Brazilian Government in the last years.
• With France, this article brings a real problem, since the only real question that existed was about the seniority between Orleans and the Bourbons, which are members of the same agnatic Capetian family and the status of the Orleans branch as part of that same family was never in question. France is also missing from the list after the change.

This brings a very naïve question: What is then the authoritative source for what constitutes a "Ruling Family" for this article now, and which definition will be held for future additions? Because as it is now, it should not even link to the definition of a Pretender on its introduction, as the list is not about this anymore. Imperadors (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Very true, I'm taking out that intro about "pretenders" and "claims" to abolished monarchies, someone can add a more relevant intro to the new subject of the article if they want to.Smeat75 (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest following Almanach de Gotha on these matters. The modern edition by is not the bible of the aristocracy that the pre-1945 version was. But I am not aware of any other reference work that would be appropriate. I have the 195th (2016) edition edited by John James. When Napoleon dethroned various families, Gotha refused to recognized this. So the book more or less created the world of pretend royalty.

Gotha describes the Orleanist pretender as "head of the Royal House of France." Meanwhile,

Count of Chambord

died back in 1882. In traditional accounts of the succession arguments, the Spanish line Louis Alphonse represents barely rates a mention. Why not? That the king of France must be a Frenchman is a well-known succession rule. Louis Alphonse himself is Spanish, as is his entire succession line since 1882. Genealogically speaking, he has a better claim to the Spanish throne as a Carlist. But I guess that would be treason. I would call him "Head of the House of Bourbon by primogeniture."

As for the Romanovs, Gotha describes

Vladimir Kirillovich

as the "last Head of the Imperial House of Russia." He died in 1992. So the head of the house position is vacant at this point. Maria Vladimirovna "assumed the style Grand Duchess of Russia with the qualification Imperial Highness on her father’s recommendation." Her claim is "based on the interpretation of male primogeniture succeeding only among the issue of marriages of equal rank, following which, after the total extinction of the male line, female succession is permitted; and on the basis of the mandated wish of Vladimir Kirillovich to alter the rules of succession in his daughter’s favour. According to the Tables of Russian Nobility (Part V), both Maria Vladimirovna and Nicholas Romanovich are the issue of mothers of equal rank and previously by dynasts of equal rank."

As for the House of Hanover, Gotha says Ernest August is "PRINCE OF HANOVER, Prince of Great Britain and Ireland, DUKE OF BRUNSWICK AND LÜNEBURG, in whom is vested the right to claim the suspended title of Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, Royal Highness." Allan Rice (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Allan Rice, oh FFS. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia. Really? Russia has no Grand Duchies. We really need to stop the fake royalty BS. Guy (help!) 13:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I've written up a basic lede. But we should discuss inclusion criteria. The criteria as I have written them exclude alternate successions to existing monarchies, but consensus may be that the article should include them.

I would suggest that we include, based on reliable sources, individuals who:

• Are the current dynastic head (for want of a better phrase) of the family that were the royal family in the country discussed immediately prior to the abolition of the monarchy;
• Do not have any current royal title in that country, and
• Are not monarch of any other country.

The last criterion is in place to avoid, for example, listing Queen Elizabeth II for all the Commonwealth republics. Kahastok talk 14:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The head of the house should be defined as the successor to the last legal title holder according to the latest agreed upon rules of the house. Allan Rice (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

"Russia has no Grand Duchies"-correct. But that isn't what the titles 'Grand Duke' and 'Grand Duchess', used by the deposed imperial family, mean.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The one area affected by the page move are the descendants of the Carlist and Jacobite claimants to the Spanish and British thrones? Should the article mention them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

What is quite remarkable, aside from anything else, as regards the Carlist and Jacobite claimants is that in both examples, a regnal number was used, as was the regnal title, quite unlike a lot of the names on the list in this article.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

This Heads of former ruling families has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the links to

 Already done I can't see those links in the article. Seagull123 Φ 16:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This list is problematic enough just covering claims based on blood descent. The entry for Mongolia is unsourced and based on supposed reincarnation, a quagmire which I suggest we should avoid getting into. The entry for Miskito has similar problems, how do we deal with former elective monarchies? PatGallacher (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I've removed those two. Speaking in general terms, I think unsourced material should be removed but if elected pretenders can be sourced then I've no problem including them. However, it's difficult to speak more specifically because so many examples might have other problems beyond sourcing. DrKay (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

There are many heads of mediatised houses who should be on this list. They are heads of the houses that once had their own states. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediatized_Houses?fbclid=IwAR1xP6c0JHmYZGL8U0FAOj7gp8L3ngWRlRQcR5QHbB3pfpuIO6dd9Cz7sZc and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_in_the_Holy_Roman_Empire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.175.100 (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Why you removed German principalities of Lippe and Reuss? Both were real states until 1918, no less than Schaumburg-Lippe or Waldeck. At least Reuss is represented by a real princely family even today. And, why you maintained grand ducal family of Mecklenburg and princely family of Schwarzburg, which became extinct in male line in 2001 and 1971, respectively? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.131.51.212 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The throne of the erstwhile Kutch State is vacant, as Pragmulji III died on 28 May 2021, and he was childless. - (2406:E003:E19:F201:213F:C785:B766:C6F8 (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC))

I have searched everywhere I can think of, but I don't see any source off Wikipedia that supports the claim made in this article that

Just from eyeballing the genealogy of the house, it would appear that

Duy Tan, is next in line. 99to99 (talk

) 01:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I found a published genealogy: Nguyễn Phúc tộc thế phả (1995). Bao Dai's legitimate children are listed on page 330, but there is no listing for Bao An. Georges is given together with Duy Tan's other children, immediately before those of Bao Dai (p. 327). Duy Tan was not the second-to-the-last emperor, so this is an order of succession rather than chronology. 99to99 (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you have no source about this. What do you mean with illegitimate? Bao An is legitimate. The Asian monarchies are different from the European ones. Bao An is recognised as a legitimate son of Bao Dai with a concubine. Plus, in the Vietnamese culture, Bao An is considered as his successor. In original Vietnamese Guy Georges Vinh San is not even close to be considered. Please, don't assume your logic to this issue. See it with Vietnamese eyes, not with western eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.186.182.166 (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The clan genealogy is here. Bao Dai’s family is given on page 330. Its just Nam Phuong and her children. Bao Dai issued a succession law in 1943, which the book claims to be following. Tunnel of fun (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

In view of this AfD, I thought I'd post the Tuscany listing from Almanach de Gotha:

[Case Postale 425, CH-1009 Pully, Vaud].

Sons and Daughter

1. Adke. Leopold Amedeo Peter Ferdinand Ferdinand Archibald Henri Joseph, Grand Prince of Tuscany, b at Glasgow 9 May 2001.

2. Adss. Tatyana Maria Theresia Laetitia Juliet, b at Livingston, West Lothian 3 March 2003.

3. Adke. Maximilian Stefano Sigismund William Bruce Erik Leopold, b at Livingston, West Lothian 27 May 2004.

James, John. Almanach de Gotha 2016: Volume I Parts I & II. Fairnesscounts (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

In response to this edit, it seems to me that we need to agree on criteria first and then impose those criteria on the list itself. Here is what I have suggested:

Entries in this list are based on the latest agreed upon succession rule of the house. This is typically the last succession law enacted when the house ruled. The rule can be hereditary or elective. Fairnesscounts (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

So, you want to remove Maria Vladimirovna, Alexander of Saxe-Gessaphe and Aimone of Savoy-Aosta, among several others? Also, I don't see how you can define 'latest agreed upon succession rule' when so many do not have an agreed rule. DrKay (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, the entire article should be deleted. They're no longer royals, accept in the eyes of their supporters. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't expect that the concept of improving the article would itself be controversial. There was a header about adding criteria earlier. Writing up criteria seemed the logical next step. As far as Maria goes, I don't think there is anything irregular about her status as head of the House of Romanov. Fairnesscounts (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Apart from it being a charade that wishes to resuscitate pompous and obsolete patterns, seeking servile homage and titles, honours and orders of a non-retrievable era, risking to fall into a Russia-wide ridicule? DrKay (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Should instances where royal families de jure held a position in the country (by having King-elect monarchs) be included in the list as well? - SeriousThinker (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

All princely titles, privy purses, and privileges (e.g. cars with special plates) were abolished by the 26th amendment to India's constitution in December 1971. The 26 Amendment Act begins with: The concept of rulership, with privy purses and special privileges unrelated to any current functions and social purposes, is incompatible with an egalitarian social order. Government have, therefore, decided to terminate the privy purses and privileges of the Rulers of former Indian States. There is no "pretender to a throne" in India because the thrones were abolished legally by an amendment that required a two-thirds majority in both houses of India's parliament. Moreover, property claims in India are no longer patrilineal, the basis of Indian royalty. We have had long discussions on this topic in

In addition to the above, the content relied on a self-contradicting unreliable newspaper report & a primary source (direct cite to a legal ruling). Those are unacceptable and in any case related to something determined by the high court of a single state, which doesn't really have the authority to be ultimate arbiter of the national constitution. Had the complainant pursued it (and given the snail's pace of the Indian legal system that may well be ongoing) then it will be the Supreme Court of India which decides ... and that does have the authority. A further issue was that much of the content was not in fact sourced, even where a citation was given. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

"There is no "pretender to a throne" in India because the thrones were abolished legally by an amendment"; then why is the purpose of this wiki page? All thrones were abolished by republics. You make no sense at all. I am tired of partial people who LOVE to edit the page according to their convenience, politics and dogmas. Stop editing it. The page is about HEAD FORMER RULING FAMILIES, not necessarily pretenders, and we all know their thrones were abolished by republics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.186.182.166 (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

OK if you know that the princely states ceased to exist on August 15, 1947 (well, for the most part; a few lasted a year or two longer, and Kashmir remains disputed), and the titles and privy purses of their rulers, and the special license plates on their vintage cars ceased to exist on 28 December 1971, then why does your history have so many columns? It should have only "State" and "abolition." You could even do away with "abolition" as the final blow, which went unnoticed in India, was struck to all on the 28th when the Indian parliament voted to ratify by an overwhelming (> 2/3) majority. You don't need "House of" as the houses had no names for most of their histories. And the dates of their founding are uniformly dubious. Please see the Wodeyars' beginnings in Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Once again, this list is about head of former ruling families and contains the relevant info (name of former state, name of head, date of attainment of position, name of house, succession style, relation with last ruling monarch, year of abolition) for each head. This is not a list of pretenders. You can read at the top of the page "Entries in this list are based on the relevant succession laws, whether hereditary or elective, irrespective of whether the individual stakes an active claim to the titles associated with the abolished monarchy.". The constitutions of India, Pakistan, or other countries are not relevant to this list whatsoever. None of the current entries on the page is grounded in any sort of law to begin with. This list is not about who has or does not have property claim either. StellarHalo (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I am restoring the entire table. There is no reason whatsoever for this list to have heads of former ruling families for other parts of the world and not those in India and Pakistan. Furthermore, heads of former ruling families do in fact exist in India and the media refer to them as such. See the following links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. StellarHalo (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@StellarHalo And I am removing again. Please get consensus. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Why use different criteria for India than the rest of the page? None of these claims have legal status. It seems to me that StellarHalo has a point. Fairnesscounts (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fairnesscounts I can't comment on the rest of the article because my interest lies with India/Pakistan. However, as a general principle of Wikipedia content, that something arguably poor or wrong exists elsewhere here is not a justification for adding other stuff which is poor etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Someone just reverted me & I reverted that. On mobile & seem to have lost ability to compare diffs, so it was a rollback for which I apologise. The claim made was that there was no consensus before the recent reinstatement ... but there was, and the two arguing against inclusion might be considered among the India/Pakistan specialists here. Will someone please ping Fowler to see if they have changed their mind? - Sitush (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

How is any of the stuff here "poor" or "wrong"? Also, two people agreeing with each other is not a consensus. There was no consensus to remove the content in the first place. StellarHalo (talk) 08:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@StellarHalo There was. Consensus is not a vote. - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

StellarHalo has a right point. Just because a monarchy is abolished, does not mean that titles, styles and statuses are gone. Royal familys no longer reigns over any sovereign territory but its members still use titles. This article is about it. --DragonFederal (talk) 08:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@DragonFederal Not in Ibdia, they don't.The title were abolished in the constitution. I can as much call myself King of Travancore as anyone else. If you don't understand the vanity of pseudo-rulers in India, the equal vanity of many India contributors on WP, and the historic basis of many Indian titles, especially through the colonial periods, then it might be best not to edit this. StellarHalo certainly doesn't get it. - Sitush (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Did you actually read any of the things I wrote above? The constitutions of India, Pakistan, or any place are not relevant to this list. We can all agree that the monarchies and titles are abolished but this list is about Heads of former ruling families not who is the current Maharaja of Travancore or any other places. StellarHalo (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@StellarHalo Yes, read & you got a response. - Sitush (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Deposed royal families has an acquired right to use their monarchical titles, officially and unofficially, as well as they have a right to give their respective dynastic orders. Members of the former ruling families of Brazil, Mexico, Iran, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, France (Bourbon, Orléans, Bonaparte), Georgia, Greece, Montenegro, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Italy (Savoy, Bourbon-Two Sicilies, Austria-Este, Bourbon-Parma, Habsburg-Lorraine), Prussia, Bavaria, Hanover, Saxony, Hesse, Oldenburg, Brunswick, Schleswig-Holstein, and even Hawai'i still (to varying degrees--the Hawai'ians and Habsburgs are less keen) use their former titles; in many cases "prince" and "princess", sometimes "duke", "archduke", etc.; even though the last reigning monarchs produced by their families died 100+ years ago. Not only is continuing to use a title once officially held by your family as a mark of recognition for their place in history not "simply not done", it's more common today than actually being officially entitled to such a senior title by virtue of a close, living relative of yours being a reigning monarch. There is a lot of

WP:IDONTLIKEIT regarding to deposed royal families and this is one of it. This is an article at the free encyclopedia, not a legal document. -- DragonFederal (talk

) 08:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@DragonFederal A lot of this isn't even sourced, eg the Mahipendra Singh of Danta entry is near useless. As I said above, since you clearly aren't reading it, I neither know nor care about alleged former ruling families outside of India/Pakistan, nor does havong some crap in an article justify adding more crap. - Sitush (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@StellarHalo So, it is based on nothing of any merit other than perhaps vanity & slavishness. If this applies to the rest of the list, it probably should go to AfD. Meanwhile, I claim the title of King of Yorkshire and demand my inclusion - I will get a couple of tame journalists to write up brief news items shortly. - Sitush (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sitush I think joking aside, there's an opportunity to be selective in choosing adequate entries for this article, as the Mughal empire come Indian and Pakistani states have a viable place, but with full references. Cltjames (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSN. Using them would be the equivalent (or even worse) than using Hello magazine. Most of the cited sources here don't even support the statements. In many cases, date of establishment is unknown. Familial lines are blurred by internecine disputes and by the past involvement of the Court of Wards, local British administrators, marriages with multiple spouses & the use of prerogative to select a non-blood successor (sometimes adopted, sometimes not). It's a vanity basket-case, a maintenance nightmare and of very little value. - Sitush (talk

) 20:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sitush I understand the 'RSN' issue on wikipedia. But all I was trying to say was this list is viable for the article, however as which has been presumed the list needs downsizing to find legitimate entries. Cltjames (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Should there be an entry for

I was wondering about the validity of the claim of the Zulu royal family as heads of the former ruling family of the province of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa. Has this family been on this list before, and if not, then why not? Any ideas please? Cltjames (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The Zulus are a Non-Sovereign African Kingdom in South Africa. Oksquirrel (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is the page not "List of…"? —Tamfang (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)