Talk:Kingdom of Sicily under Savoy

(First comments)

This is just a title used by the Savoyards after they were assigned the Kingdom of Sicily in 1713. They kept it up until 1723, even after they got a raw deal in 1720 that forced them to exchange this kingdom for the Kingdom of Sardinia. That is all. The information on this period in Sicilian history can be at that article. The history of the Savoyards in this period can be at House of Savoy, or perhaps we need a Savoy State (I believe that Christopher Storr's term) article to describe the history of the Savoyards' possessions from the late Middle Ages down to 1861/1946. Srnec (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see a need for a separate article on this. I do like the fact that from 1720-1723 the King of Sicily, Jerusalem, and Cyprus ruled over neither Sicily, nor Jerusalem, nor Cyprus. That's even better than Voltaire's quip about the Holy Roman Empire. john k (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I repeat, this article can't be merged with the article about the Kingdom of Sicily because they speaks about different concepts (looking at the flags is sufficient to understand the difference). The fact that this period covered seven years only is not sufficient to justify a deletion (in wikipedia we have dozens of articles about second/third/forth/fifth/sixth/tenth republics of various countries of the 20th century, many covering only few months). Yes, we could merge this page with the page about the Duchy of Savoy, but then we should merge the page about the Kingdom of Sardinia too for equity.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What happened in 1713?

The Kingdom of Sicily founded by Roger II in 1130 was transferred, as spoils of war, to the Duke of Savoy, who thus became King of Sicily (and all the other titles associated with it, including titles claiming the kingship of Jerusalem and Cyprus, kingdoms which hadn't existed for centuries). The kingdom of Sicily never included Savoy. Or any of Amadeus's other holdings, like the Piedmont or Nice. That's why Amadeus continued as Duke of Savoy (and Prince of Piedmont, etc.) until his death, but Sicily was taken away from him in 1720 (although he refused to recognise it until 1723, even though he had been compensated with the Kingdom of Sardinia, which his descendants managed to augment into the Kingdom of Italy by 1861). Srnec (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You simply do not know the history of this period. With the peace treaty of 1713, the old Savoyard State changed name from Duchy of Savoy to Kingdom of Sicily. All statal acts, all statal offices became royal instead of ducal. Here the new pounds circulating in Piedmont from 1714. --Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you don't get it. Do you really not understand that that coin simply bears the title of the man whose effigy is on it? I have a Canadian dime that reads "IMP IND" (Imperator Indiae). Does that mean Canada was part of the Empire of India during the reign of George VI? The "Savoyard state" didn't have a name, much less change one, in 1713. That is why historians call it the "Savoyard state" out of convenience. Sicily remained a separate realm, albeit in personal union with Savoy et al. from 1713 to 1720. —Srnec (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The term "personal union" in wikipedia is used by university students who do not really understand what that term refers to (in fact, its page here in en.wiki should be largely changed). In international law we speak about personal unions in very historically-unusual situations, when two States maintained their separate sovereignty despite being ruled by the same monarch. The classic situation of personal union is the link between UK and Hanover before Empress Victoria. In our case, it's very difficult to say that Sicily had a separate sovereignty face to Piedmont from 1713 to 1720, Sicily not being independent for centuries: in fact, we have not a single treaty proving this idea. --Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why I waste time with you. The Savoyard state (Piedmont) had no sovereignty in 1713. What Victor Amadeus gained was precisely sovereignty, through the acquisition of a kingdom. The different states under his rule definitely maintained different administrations and different laws. In fact, personal union is not at all unusual historically. Nor is the idea of personal sovereignty. Srnec (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"The Savoyard State had no sovereignty in 1713"???? Are you joking? I think you never studied history nor international law. How could Savoyard Piedmont sign the Treaty of Utrecht without sovereignty?--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Who says you always needed sovereignty to sign a treaty? Even if I concede that Savoy was sovereing in 1713 (which I see no need to do), it is still irrelevant. The French recognised the duke of Savoy as "His Royal Highness" without any recognition from the Holy Roman Emperor, who was the duke's overlord. In 1713 the duke received international recognition of a status he greatly desired (and which he de facto had). Modern concepts of "treaties" and "sovereignty" cannot be applied back in time the way you do. The Savoyard state was formed gradually from the 11th century on. It was usually a personal union of several territories. These changed over time, but the Savoyards held a kingdom after 1713 and in 1847 they unified their realms (there being no constitutional impediment). In 1861 they renamed their realm. In 1946 they lost it to a republican government. So, you see, I do believe that the modern Italian state is, in some ways, a direct descendant of the Savoyard state. But I also believe it is a direct descendant of the medieval Sardinian state, because that is whence the sovereignty of the Savoyards and their royal pretensions received legitimisation. Srnec (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Who says you always needed sovereignty to sign a treaty? Simple answer: every book of international law. I think you never knew a treaty called Treaty of Westphalia, closing a was called Thirty Years'War, establishing the actual concept of sovereignty and international community. And, by the way, changing the HRE (Holy Roman Empire) into a confederation (= a group of sovereign states). The concept of personal union was unknown in Middle Ages, before the birth of the public administrations, the realms being a private propierty of the kings. And your presumptive Sardinian state existed in your imagination only: never, in its history, Sardinia had an own genuine national government, allowing to speak about a State. But if you have new, unknown sources which demonstrate that Sardinia was not ruled by Spanish lords, please show them...--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Your ignorance is on full display. Do you think history begins in 1648? Do the Middle Ages just not count? Do you actually know what medieval political theory looks like? Was Westphalia the very first treaty ever? If the concepts of sovereignty and "international community" did not exist before 1648, then how can you use them in analysing the origins of the medieval kingdom of Sardinia?

Whether the Holy Roman Empire was a confederation is not a point I wish to debate, because it is irrelevant. Is Switzerland a confederation? Are its cantons sovereing? What about the USA? Some would say the states are sovereign, but the USA doesn't look like a confederation to me. Canada? It almost looks like a real confederation, and we certainly use that word, but mainly to describe an event that occured long before Canada was independent and sovereign. I see no reason to affirm the sovereignty of Savoy ever, but I don't deny it either. It's just moot. Srnec (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can be allowed to continue to write in wikipedia, your answers evidently showing you have not a simple idea about anything you are writing. Everybody who studied law at least six months, or history few more, knows that Canada, USA, and Switzeland are not confederations but federations. More, the question about the name of Switzeland is the classic question in universities of international law: if you dont't answer the name "Swiss Confederation" is an historical heritage of the period the War of the Sonderbund (1847), your career in that university will come to a dramatic end...--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I never said that Canada, the USA and Switzerland are confederations. Your problem is that you can't read or understand English. I'm not going to grant you that the HRE was a confederation. That was my main point. I'm not going even to grant that "sovereignty" is a clear and distinct concept. Srnec (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ceertainly USA, Canada and Switzerland are off-topic here: you introduced them, to hide your lacking of sources and knowlodge about our topic. And, by the way, I never said that Westphalia created the actual international community: it was the end of a phenomenon which began during the 12th century. Surely, as all history books says, Westphalia recognized the HRE as a confederation (=union of independent States).--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No, Westphalia did not recognise the HRE as a "confederation" or "union of independent states", whatever any textbook says. Srnec (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, you can't write history as you want. You can write novels about parallel universes where history went as you like, but here we are not writing novels. Everybody who studied history know that Westphalia decided that "it shall be free perpetually to each of the States of the Empire, to make Alliances with Strangers for their Preservation and Safety": the States of the Empire became free to follow their own foreign policies, transforming the Empire exactly into a confederation.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

And again I ask, "So?" The HRE was not "an association of sovereign member states that, by treaty, have delegated certain of their competences to common institutions", the definition of a confederation provided in our article on the topic. (I could provide other reliable definitions that equally clearly exclude the HRE. These are modern definitions, but it is you who insist on reading the past through 21st-century internation law glasses.) My point, again, is not to deny that the empire was a confederation. I happen to think calling it such doesn't elucidate its nature very much, even if it can be defended. My point is that this is all irrelevant to the real question about this article's existence, which partly hinges on what the K. of Sicily was in 1713, what the Savoyard state (or Piedmont) was in 1713, and what changed. Srnec (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Our wiki-article about confederations, despite not being an high-quality article as all wikipedian article about international law, later says that usually confederations are established by treaty: in fact confederations (as federations), which generally unite former separate territories, sometimes are the result of the breaking of a former single state (as Belgium for federations). But, speaking about our Savoyard Kingdom, say us (WITH REFERENCES) what is your idea about the royal arise of the Savoyard State in 1713.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The following quotations are from Christopher Storrs, War, diplomacy and the rise of Savoy, 1690–1720 (Cambridge University Press, 1999), with page numbers in parentheses:

One final point needs clarification, by way of introduction: the proper designation of the Savoyard state. This causes many problems to those unfamiliar with the state, who seek to identify it with a variety of labels which it is felt reflect power realities. Thus, it is often called Piedmont-Savoy to indicate the fact that, although Victor Amadeus was duke of Savoy, the most important part of his territories (in terms of extent, population and revenues yielded) was the principality of Piedmont. These efforts to give the Savoyard state an adequate name reflect the degree to which this typically composite early modern state fitted (and continued to fit after 1713, with the added complication of the acquisition of the Kingdom of Sicily and later Sardinia) ill into our 'modern' notions of statehood. For the most part, it will be referred to in this book as the Savoyard state, unless otherwise appropriate. (19)

. . .the question of papal recognistion of Victor Amadeus as king of Sicily, and later of Sardinia [was]. . . not resolved until the Concordats of 1727 and 1741. . . (91)

But Victor Amadeus himself scored one of the greatest successes, with his acquisition of Sicily (1713), which was at least as important for the royal dignity the island kingdom brought with it as for the additional territory and resources it represented. (155)

. . .Victor Amadeus' authority—or sovereignty—in Sardinia was limited by the terms of its cession (as had been the case with Sicily). [fn.: Following Charles Emmanuel III's issuing (1770) of new Constitutions, the Sardinian feudal barons claimed these breached the terms of the island realm's cession in 1720, and appealed to the King of Spain, Charles III, who according to the act of cession would inherit Sardinia in the event of the extinction of the House of Savoy, as guarantor of the island's 'constitution'.] (170)

Victor Amadeus' arrival in his new kingdom, Sicily, in 1713 was also the occasion for a Te Deum mass. . . (217)

I think they explain it sufficiently. Srnec (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

What did you explain with these paragraphs??--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably nothing, because, as I've said before, you can't seem to understand English. The first quotation from Storrs calls the Savoyard state a "typically composite early modern state" that doesn't fit into modern definitions of statehood very well. It shows that "the acquisition of the Kingdom of Sicily" happened in 1713, not that the Savoyard state became a monarchy. It remained "composite". The second statement demonstrates how the medieval origins of Sicily and Sardinia, ignored by you, were not forgotten or irrelevant. This is why concordats had to be signed with popes: to legitimise the Savoys' holding of what were originally papal fiefs. The third refers to "the royal dignity the island kingdom brought". You asked "what is your idea about the royal arise of the Savoyard State in 1713"? Could it be any easier to explain than this? The Sicilian kingdom brought the royal dignity to the Savoyards. The fourth excerpt makes the practical distinction between the "island realms" and the Savoyard state clear. In fact, whatever sovereignty Victor Amadeus had in his other dominions (in some of which it was limited by the Emperor), he had limited sovereignty in the kingdom of Sicily. The fifth excerpt makes the same distinction. V. Amadeus could "arrive" in his "new kingdom" after leaving his mainland possessions. The point is that the "Kingdom of Sicily" was never the entire Savoyard state, but only a component (albeit the one with the most coveted rank). Srnec (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If there's somebody here that does not understand, is you. Everybody knows that the Savoyard State was composite. What is the problem? Wasn't Spain composite during that period? Weren't the Netherlands? Was not the UK composite still today? The fact is that Hugo Grotius (have you ever heard about him?) demonstrated yet that internal political organization is irrilevant for international law (Grotius demonstrated that the state of war between the Netherlands and Spain automaticly legitimated a state of war between the Netherlands and Portugal, Spain and Portugal being united in the early 17th century, so to be considered a single State in international law).
Whatever was the medieval origin of the Sicilian crown, the Treaty of Utrecht says that Spain ceded Sicily to Savoy, so that the Savoyard State changed its ducal standards into royal standards. And this fact is not denied, but confirmed by Storrs' words. When Hong Kong was a British territory, some its parts were simply "leased" by China according to bi-lateral treaties: was the British sovereignty over HK "limited" during the 20th century? I think you would be the sole man in the world affirming that.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please quote the pertinent part of the treaty of Utrecht? I don't have a copy. (And remember: Grotius was Dutch.) Srnec (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you hate Dutch people?
Well, speaking about Utrecht, we can read (I translated from the original French text): In execution of the pact with HM the Queen of Great Britain during the peace speeches, (...) HCM Felipe V, King of Spain and the Indies, gave, ceded and passed, as actually gives, cedes and passes, simply and irrevocably to HRH Vittorio Amedeo II, Duke of Savoy, for him and his descendants (...) by firstborn to firstborn, the Kingdom of Sicily and its neighbor islands, dependencies and annexes, in full property and sovereignty, with all the rights of the monarchy, jurisdiction, authority, etc....--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The point was that of course Grotius would say that; it was basically his job to justify what his people were doing.

Just as I thought: Spain ceded nothing, rather, the King of Spain ceded one of his kingdoms to the Duke of Savoy. This is how it worked. Also, note how the Duke of Savoy had been accorded the style HRH by the King of Spain before becoming a king. He was already, in a sense, royal, but he didn't have a kingdom. Srnec (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point that underlines you are wrong: the fact that the king of Spain ceded Sicily, more that simply Spain, underlines that Sicily was only an object, and not a subject, of our international translation.
By the way, the duke of Savoy was yet styled as "royal" because he previously claimed the royal thrones of Jerusalem and Cyprus.

Despite this quarrell, I wish you a good Easter, Srnec.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sicily was only an object? Okay. So what? Who cares? Who ever denied it? Weren't all monarchies at this time little more than objects when it came to this sort of thing? I can honestly say I have no idea what you think was going on in 1713. (My point was only that the style was recognised by someone outside of his own chancery.) Srnec (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Srnec, I came back from my Easter holidays, and I see you can't live a single day without wikipedia. In 1713 the people of Piedmont became subject to a king, and no more to a duke. I think it's not the first time I explain you this fact...--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Page blanking

"Gentlemen, you can’t fight here, this is the War Room!"
Srnec: I have some sympathy with your point, but you took it to AfD and it wasn’t supported. Nor was the notion to merge it anywhere. So taking it on yourself to blank and redirect the page is a bit cheeky. If you have grounds to challenge it, then do, but for now the page should stay. Anything else is an ANI matter.
JohnnyBeeGood: The page, I have to say, is a bit of a mess. It purports to describe a title that lasted 7 (or 10) years, yet the history section starts with "Through centuries…" And there’s a lot of peacockry in it. It could do with a fairly drastic re-writing.
I like john.k’s point (above) that for three years the kingdom consisted of neither Sicily, nor Jerusalem, nor Cyprus; I think it’s worth having an article at this title just to say that. But I also think it’s worth having a (brief!) article explaining the transition from the Duchy of Savoy to the Kingdom of Sardinia.
Over to you...Swanny18 (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the fact that there are no hits for "Kingdom of Sicily, Jerusalem and Cyprus" at Google Books or Google Scholar mean anything? The sources cited in the article do not talk about an entity of this name. There are no footnotes to help us out. It fails WP:V and the deletion request was closed, not as "keep", but as "no consensus" (and there were some "merge" votes). I did not mention the lack of verifiability or reliable sources during the AFD because I mistakenly thought people could graps the real issue between me and Jonny. I was wrong. This article is a POV fork, but the issues are complex and, frankly, I don't believe people understand them. That's why I should have just pointed out that there are no non-WP sources for this supposed kingdom. I am working on an article about the Kingdom of Sicily (1713–1720) to replace this one. This title should redirect to Kingdom of Sicily and, of course, to prevent undue weight through our choice of subarticles, we ought to have Kingdom of Sicily (1130–1194), Kingdom of Sicily (1194–1266), Kingdom of Sicily (1266–1282), etc. I hope you can see why I'm not enthusiastic about trying to clean up this mess. —Srnec (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry for the delay; I don't get here much these days) This isn’t an area I know a lot about (I was just passing…!) and having read the discussions on various pages I don’t know I’m much the wiser about the points at issue.

If it's just title and content that is the problem I can see a couple of changes that would improve matters, but if (as I suspect) your issue is some fundamental interpretation of affairs that is beyond me at present.

As far as I can make out: If you see this as a major step in the progression of the House of Savoy from local aristocracy to national monarchy, despite lasting only seven (or ten) years (Jonny’s point?), then this article is of a piece with others in that chain. OTOH (your point?) if it is just a minor blip in the history of Sicily then it doesn’t rate more than a mention in the history of that land. Is that the size of it?

But I don’t know if those two views are mutually exclusive; an analogy perhaps is the history of the British Raj in India; for the British point of view it’s a big deal; from the Indian point of view it’s an episode in a 5,000 year history. And we have articles on both.

I am keen on process (things being done decently and in order) and I don’t mind trying to help. If you want me to make a few changes to see if that helps, then OK; if you want me to hold your coats while the two of you go at each other with bats, then that's fair enough too...Swanny18 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary point

I left a little advice for Srnec. All people understood that you don't care at all Sicilian history, and that you are here simply to support your strange theories about Sardinia. However, a basic point must be underlined: Sardinian and Sicilian history are different. There was, in history, an effective K of Sicily, which was sometimes sovereign, and more times a colonian territory. However, even if sovereign or not, a Sicilian State existed. This is not the same thing for Sardinia, which was no more than a "paper realm". So, I suggest you not to waste your time about Sicily: even if your vandalisms about Sicily won (and I'm here to fight your vandalic attitude), this fact would not help you at all about Sardinia.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Title

In 1713, when Victor Amadeus II obtained the title of King, the countries under his rule were not united in a single state. The Kingdom of Sicily, the Duchy of Savoy, the County of Nice, etc., continued to be different states. Moreover, there was not a "Kingdom of Sicily, Jerusalem and Cyprus"; but the title assumed by Amadeus II was "King of Sicily, Jerusalem and Cyprus".

The title now used for this article (Kingdom of Sicily under Savoy) is uncorrect: because the word Savoy indicates the geographical region and not the royal house. Correct alternatives are: the previous title (Kingdom of Sicily (1713–1720)), Kingdom of Sicily under the House of Savoy, Kingdom of Sicily under the Savoys. --The White Lion (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The word Savoy can indicate more than just geography, it can also indicate a royal house. All the alternatives you suggest are correct. So which is best? I can see advantages to each (except maybe the last one), but the current title also has its advantages: conciseness and descriptiveness (unlike the title with the dates). Srnec (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this entity referred to in any authoritative sources? If so, under what name? --Kotniski (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"This entity" is just the same kingdom of Sicily you've read about a hundred times. This article is about that entity during the complex period 1713–20, during which it was ruled by the Savoyards. Precedents for this type of article include History of the United States (1789–1849) and Spain under the Restoration. —Srnec (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As you write, the word "Savoy" can indicate more than just geography, it can also indicate a royal house, so it doesn't indicate exclusively only one concept: if we want to refer to a certain object, we have to use a title with no possibility of misunderstanding and, specially, conceptually correct: in this case the best choice is Kingdom of Sicily under the House of Savoy. As a note about the title with the dates, in it:wiki, a lot of articles about historical states contains the time range in the title.

Kotniski, if you search on Google books, you can find books in italian or in english that write about the Kingdom of Sicily "under Victor Amadeus II of Savoy" or "under the House of Savoy" or "under the piedemontese rule". --The White Lion (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no possible ambiguity. A kingdom is not generally found under a geographical region. I have no problem with the date range, nor with using "the House of Savoy", but since that is substantially longer than the present title, I think a request would be in order. Srnec (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

But is this another case like Kingdom of Sardinia, where the name of the possession is also applied to the whole domains of the possessor (i.e. all the Savoy lands in 1713-20), or does that not happen in this case?--Kotniski (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have seen "Piedmont-Sicily", but that's it. Srnec (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hard to find any examples of that on either Google Books or Scholar. Nor does "under Savoy" seem to be a common way of identifying this entity. I'm inclined towards moving the page back to where it started: "Kingdom of Sicily (1713-1720)". --Kotniski (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

My mind may be playing tricks on me, but as this is a descriptive title we hardly need to find "a common way of identifying this entity", only an accurate description. Srnec (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, my proposal was just to achieve a better accurate description, but if there is no agreement to specify "...the House of Savoy", the best solution is "Kingdom of Sicily (1713-1720)". --The White Lion (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "under Savoy" is strange English (that was the point of my remark above); I don't know how many readers would readily understand that "Savoy" here means the ruling house thereof. But "under the House of Savoy" is also unsatisfactory since it implies some kind of dynasty, not just a single king for a few years. I think my preference is still for the dates.--Kotniski (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Dates? Agree. I think it is the best solution at present and I hope Srnec will agree. Imho, if you feel appropriate, we can move the page. --The White Lion (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Why was this page moved? Last time I looked it was "Kingdom of Sicily (1713-1720)" which made perfect sense, and fitted with the titles of similar articles. What was the rationale for changing it? Swanny18 (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the opening statement reads "The only Sicilian king of the House of Savoy was Victor Amadeus II." He wasn't Sicilian, was he? Surely that should read "The only Savoyard king of Sicily was..." Swanny18 (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

He was a Sicilian king. Srnec (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

?? He was born in Turin, according to his article. Nothing Sicilian about him before he became king of Sicily or after he stopped being, as far as I can tell.--Kotniski (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A king of Sicily is a Sicilian king. Was George I a British monarch? Srnec (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Naturalized British, perhaps... Anyway, we avoid this kind of semantic puzzle by saying "King of ..." when that's what we mean.--Kotniski (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)