Talk:Prince Christian of Hanover

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

Line of Succession to the British throne ?[edit]

Prince Christian recently married in a catholic ceremony to a catholic girl, I believe when someone marries into the Catholic Church looses its right to the British throne as it happened to Lord Nicholas Windsor . MaliG28 (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and the article also claims that he is 2nd in the Line of succession to the Hanoverian throne, but this article suggests that he is third after his nephew. PatGallacher (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title?[edit]

If titles were abolished in Germany why is this article referring to him as "Prince Christian" when he is a prince in pretense? Wellington Bay (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't, but a lot of articles about fake nobility have been originally written by monarchists / as part of a weird fandom (e.g. [1]), and there aren't very many people who care enough to try to clean it up (e.g., I personally would rather gouge my left eye out with a hot poker than try to read through all of it). Thanks for improving this one. --JBL (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 April 2024[edit]

Prince Christian of Hanover → Christian von Hannover or Christian Prinz von Hannover – Per WP:NCROY and the outcome of past discussions in exceedingly similar cases: 1 and 2. There are no princes of Hanover born post 1918; the correct response to the request here should have been to move the two mis-titled sibling pages, not this one. JBL (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. D1551D3N7 (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per a quick check on the sources in the article:
Christian von Hannover: [2] [3]
Prince Christian von Hannover: [4] [5]
Therfore, based on the sources of the article, there is no clear established name. Without an established name, we should choose the one without the title in pretense based on WP:NCROY. Furthermore as in the aforementioned cases, there is a convincing rational, that the usage of pretendet titles may be problematic and should be avoided even per WP:COMMONNAME. Additional Comment to the persons participating in and closing this debate: A RM is not a vote. "per" comments are not arguments and any claim like the claim which is the WP:COMMONNAME should be established and not simply stated without evidence. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that whoever closes this will observe that this is the first (so far only) !vote invoking WP:COMMONNAME to address the question of what is actually common in sources :/. (Of course WP:COMMONNAME also says "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." but who can expect anyone to actually read the policies they drop?) --JBL (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Prince Christian of Hanover": [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. This is just a small selection, by the way. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to bring your attention to WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:GREL. Please stay with reliable sources. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That still leaves 14 English-language reliable sources using "Prince Christian of Hanover", compared to your zero for "Christian von Hannover". It is blindingly obvious what the common name is. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose That simply is not his common name in English. Keivan.fTalk 07:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just because a monarchy or system of nobility has been abolished does not necessarily mean that the titles are now non-existent. I remember commenting years ago on a move request similar to this opposing it but I forgot what it was. cookie monster 755 00:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I was going to stay out of this, but the misrepresentation and denial of sources by the movers is so egregious that I can't resist. The correct response to the reply here should have been to withdraw the move or strike support. DrKay (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

I changed the Infobox from Template:Infobox_royalty to Template:Infobox person, which is suitable because there was no field, which is missing in the more general infobox. Furthermore, as a matter of fact there is no german royalty since 1918 and therefore this indiviual is not royal. I absolutly acknoweledge there is reasonable usage of the Template:Infobox_royalty for individuals in the broader field of royalty, without being royalty in a strict interpretation, where fields are useful, which are only available in Template:Infobox_royalty. As mentioned before, this is not the case here.

@FlightTime reverted my edit without any reasoning and refused to find a consensus through editing. Therefore, I hope, we can find a a consensus through discussion --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theoreticalmawi: How can you say that? My first reason and my second, thank you for starting this discussion. Welcome newbie. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime: I apologise if my wording could be misunderstood. You reasoned your reverts by saying you wanted to discuss it, but did not give a reason why. If you don't bring an argument as to why you prefer Template:Infobox Royalty, we'll reach consensus very quickly. I appreciate your participation in this discussion. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theoreticalmawi: To be clear, I don't care what infobox is used this article, because I do not know the article subject and I have no plans to engage in this discussion for those reasons, but I do know that just showing up and changing an infobox should be discussed with other page watchers so they have a chance to input their opinions, that saves a lot of reverting, editwarring and blocks. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel)
Do not revert edits if you do not have a substantive objection to them. --JBL (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I object the fact that major edits are made without the consideration of gaining consensus first and will continue to object such edits. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wikt:substantive (antonyms incl: procedural, superficial). See also: Substantive, informative explanations indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Explanations are especially important when reverting another editor's good-faith work. --JBL (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think on balance Infobox royalty is better. The only substantial difference is changing between family and house, and house is more appropriate for the data in that field. Family is wider than only the paternal ancestral line and would include other notable relations. DrKay (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So Family allows to add additional notable relations when there such relations. It would clearly extend the intended usecase of royalty, when every person, where only the paternal ancestral line is listed as family, whould be moved to the royalty infobox. We can use family = House of Hanover to specify the special character of this particular notable relation. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Christian_of_Hanover&oldid=1221890889"