Talk:Royal and noble styles

Various

I call dibs on the transformation of Roman military titles> Germanic military titles > Germanic (i.e. medieval) heritable titles....at least till the 10th c.!! (Unless somebody else really wants it) JHK

---

Virtually empty article erased:

The titles -- styles -- of royalty, nobility, and gentry are subject to many difficulties. To some extent styles are both a matter of legal reality and of self representation.

topics to explore:

common titles of nobility - their origins

titles as heritable

titles as propaganda claims

the use of styles of nobility in Meiji Japan

the abolition of all titles (in some countries) in the modern era

-- Ruhrjung 13:35 29 May 2003 (UTC)

---

Well, I see that this was, in fact, an article at one point. If anyone wants to contribute, please do - there's much that could be done here. john 07:04 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

--- What if anything can we add concerning the local princes here in Saudi Arabia? Some are HRH and others are just HH. There must be some sort of system. Paul, in Saudi

Hmm, no idea. I'd imagine something like children of a King are "HRH", and others are "HH", but don't quote me on that. john 18:34, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Template:Infobox hrhstyles etc

Templates Infobox hrhstyles, Infobox scotlandkingstyles, Infobox_UKkingstyles and Infobox consortstyles have been listed for deletion. To comment on this, visit Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. — OwenBlacker 03:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Archdukes of Austria

The article states that members of the Imperial house of Austria bore the traditional style "königliche und kaiserliche Hoheit". However, I just came across the style "kaiserliche und königliche Hoheit". Could someone back up this statement with a proper source. Gugganij 18:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It is probably just a case of someone mixing the order up. They mean the same thing, basically. Charles 18:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hohenzollern Heir

In the Hohenzollern family, how come only the heir was given the style Imperial and Royal Highness? Why not the whole family like the Habsburgs? Emperor001 (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Because in the German Empire, only the German Emperor, German Empress, German Crown Prince and German Crown Princess held titles of imperial status, much like in the United Kingdom where the king and queen were Emperor and Empress of India without the rest of the family having Indian titles. The Prussian Royal Family did not have the titles "German Prince" or "Prince of Germany" and therefore did not constitute part of the Imperial Family unless they had one of the four previously mentioned titles. The heir of the family, as titular German Emperor, is entitled to an imperial style. Charles 22:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I have suggested merging The Most High, Noble and Potent Prince and The Most Noble and Puissant Prince to Royal and noble styles#Noble styles in the United Kingdom and Hochwohlgeboren to Royal and noble styles#Noble styles in Germany, simply because those pages are this page is covered entirely by the scope of this article and they are little more than stubs which are is little more than a stub which is unlikely to expand further than what they are it is now. Unlike Highness, which has many, many derivatives, these styles are relatively few and this style is a single, simple form with few derivatives best dealt with on this page. Charles 22:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

All done. Charles 22:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Undone now, apparently. Cameron, please be sure to post on this page. Charles 16:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hochwohlgeboren has been, and still is, an important part of German society. It merits an article of its own and should not be merged (especially if one doesn't transfer all the information so as to make sure that nothing goes lost). --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

French Style

If that is of any relevance here, the current styling of French nobility is the following :

• Members of the royal family : Monseigneur
• Dukes : Monsieur le Duc
• Other nobility titles : depending on who adresses them; another member of the nobility (or socially similar persons) would call them Monsieur, other people would call them Monsieur + their title (Monsieur le Marquis, Monsieur le Comte, etc.). The latter being however very seldom used nowadays

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2FDA:B5E0:FC34:F0B3:9580:7384 (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

nobility bearing the title of "Prince" (who are not royalty of highness)

Dukes and duchesses in the peerages of England, Scotland, Great Britain, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, as well as nobility bearing the title of "Prince" (who are not royalty of highness) bear the style of Grace, e.g. "His Grace", "Your Grace".

The Prince part is obscure. Is this about foreign princes? Or is it obsolete because there are (now) no non-royal princes in Britain? —Tamfang (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

There never have been any non royal UK princes. There was/is an ultra formal style of address where certain peers were styled 'prince' but they were not actual princes its was merely a style. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Translations from French

Please note My Lord' cannot be a translation for Monseigneur, even if Lord is a translation for Seigneur. Monseigneur is used to style people of high rank (princes and, after the 19th c., bishops), while Mylord is used for non-royal noblemen. As it happens, "my lord" is never translated in French, as it would confuse a french speaker. Same works for "monseigneur". Sir for Monsieur is even more confusing, as in english Sir is never used in conjunction with a title ("Sir Duke" does not exist). 217.167.255.177 (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 January 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. After much extended time for discussion, no consensus has arisen for any specific move from the current title. BD2412 T 18:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Royal and noble styles → Imperial, royal and noble styles – Would this make sense? C.f. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 11#Category:Styles of sovereigns. PPEMES (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, and if anything, would support move to Noble styles. Royalty are members of the nobility, so "noble styles" already covers everything. There's no need to include every subdivison and synonym for "noble." SnowFire (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No opinion on pluralization; would be fine with both Noble style or Noble styles. Per Dekimasu's comment, would also support consistency with the recently moved Royal and noble ranks / Imperial, royal and noble ranks, so move that to Noble rank / Noble ranks as well; same with Template:Imperial, royal, and noble styles. SnowFire (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Imperial" is just a subset of "noble" (in simple terms, being a king-of-kings instead of just a king). I would also support Noble style per SnowFire's idea for even more concision (since "royal" is just a subset of "noble"), and using singular per WP:SINGULAR. However, I think that people in the royalty-obsessing crowd are going to come up with some kind of distinction to try to draw between "royal" and "noble". I've seen that come up several times before in other contexts, though I don't really buy the rationales that have been offered (it's a fallacy of equivocation; the fact that Definition A has a more particular meaning in very narrow Context X doesn't mean that when WP is writing in a broader context that only Definition A can be used, nor even that it's the one that the majority of readers will expect or even understand).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. Would you mind referring to some sourced article realm content that supports the assertion that royalty would be considered part of nobility in English language? PPEMES (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

For English-speaking countries example: Title of Nobility Clause or Constitution_of_Ireland#Individual_rights. Nobody thinks that this prevents only dukes and marquesses from being created, but would allow a King of the USA/Ireland and knights and such. It covers everything, and the Framers are on record as explicitly not wanting kings / royalty, so that was the obvious, non-controversial intent.

What you might be referring to is that sure, "the nobility" can be a term contrasted with the actions of royalty where it really means "all the other nobles" ("Louis XIV clashed with the French nobility over centralization of power in Paris."). But everybody's still a noble, just some of them are also some shade of royalty. This is especially clear with non-reigning members of noble houses of royal rank, e.g. the random extra kids who never got to be king but instead were "just" normal members of the nobility with dukedoms and the like that they gave to their kids. SnowFire (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Excuse, where in those links does offer support for assertion that royalty is a subset of nobility, please? Because I fail to identify any such quote. PPEMES (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Cf. Imperial, royal and noble ranks, requested to be moved to that title a year ago by PPEMES and moved without objection. Dekimasuよ! 15:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONSISTENCY with Imperial, royal and noble ranks and also WP:PRECISE. I think it's very debatable whether royalty is part of nobility or not (our article on the subject defines it as "a social class normally ranked immediately under royalty" which implies royalty is not included). But either way, an ordinary reader would not be expected to know this and could reasonably expect a "Noble styles" article to only include those below royalty. The same with the royal/imperial distinction, so overall this is a good proposal.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• oppose the proposed, Support Noble styles. The proposed is inconcise. Imperial is a subset of royal is a subset of noble. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.