User talk:Mcferran

Noel, I'm very glad you too are doing work on this article. The Kaisergruft web site has typos on dates in it, and by more than one person working on the article, as we verify information, we can be sure that info in the mini-bios for those unlikely to ever have their own articles is valid in case someone decides to create a stub article for any of them. But in the meanwhile I have taken the attitude that for those minor players, their entry in this listing may be all that is ever said about them in the Wikipedia, so I try to give a little something about them besides their dates, if possible.

I have tended to retain the German spelling of names because of the context (a site within a German-speaking country) although that person may have an existing article. It just seemed too confusing to refer to the builder of the Karlsgruft as "Charles."

Naturally, this being a Wiki, you may have better ideas that you edit in. I'm not saying what I have done so far is right, just explaining what my thinking has been so far. I'm sure that as time goes on, the article will be much improved by edits and polishing from you and others!

I've visited the Kaisergruft several times, and I'm trying to use that experience and the materials I brought from there so that the reader can visualize such an experience vicariously, and appreciate the significance of some of the contents.

I've been hopping around from one section with abandon, but knowing that there is now someone else now doing much-appreciated work there too, I will try to stay within a single Vault until it is completely done so that we don't step on each other's edits.

Regards --StanZegel 4 July 2005 03:40 (UTC)

Thanks for alpha-ordering the table this is something I was going to do but kept procrastinating over. Cheers! Monotonehell 18:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I do not know if Franz Herzog von Bayern ever changed his legal last name. I can however give you my estimate based on the legal situation and hurdles regarding a name change.

To change one's legal last name in Germany, one has to abide by the Law concerning the change of first and last names ("NamÄndG", Gesetz über die Änderung von Familiennamen und Vornamen, http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/nam_ndg/BJNR000090938.html, last checked on 14 Feb 06, 21:57).

§ 3 NamÄndG reads:

"(1) Ein Familienname darf nur geändert werden, wenn ein wichtiger Grund die Änderung rechtfertigt.

(2) Die für die Entscheidung erheblichen Umstände sind von Amts wegen festzustellen; dabei sollen insbesondere außer den unmittelbar Beteiligten die zuständige Ortspolizeibehörde und solche Personen gehört werden, deren Rechte durch die Namensänderung berührt werden."

(1) A last name may only be changed if an important reason justifies such change.

(2) The facts relevant to such decision are to be determined officially; in doing so, the parties as well as the local administration and people affected by the change are to be heard. (Translation by the signer)

Regarding the definition as to what constitutes an "important reason", a quick look in legal journals finds several interesting decisions by the competent courts. For instance, the Higher Administrative Court for the Free State of Bavaria has rendered the following:

"Ein wichtiger Grund für die begehrte Namensänderung ergibt sich auch nicht daraus, daß damit eine alte Familientradition fortgesetzt werden soll. Der Wunsch der Kläger, die ehemaligen Adelstitel Ritter von K bzw. von K in der Familie als Bestandteile des Familiennamens zu führen, weil der Kläger und die Klägerin zu 3 einem deutschen Adelsgeschlecht entspringen, mag verständlich erscheinen, rechtfertigt aber nicht die Namensänderung. Nach der Vorschrift der Nr. 46 NamÄndVwV, die, wie oben dargelegt, einer allgemeinen Verkehrsauffassung entspricht, rechtfertigt nicht einmal das Aussterben eines Familiennamens eine Namensänderung. Dabei ist auch zu berücksichtigen, daß Namen mit Adelsbezeichnungen im Wege der Namensänderung nur ausnahmsweise gewährt werden dürfen; das ergibt sich bereits aus der fortgeltenden Vorschrift der Art. 109 Abs. 3 Satz 2 der Verfassung des Deutschen Reiches vom 11. August 1919, welche lautet "Adelsbezeichnungen gelten nur als Teil des Namens und dürfen nicht mehr verliehen werden". (vgl. BayVGH vom 27. 10. 1982 Nr. 5 B 82 A. 110, vom 5. 1. 1983 Nr. 5 B 81 A.2699 und vom 29. 1. 1986 Nr 5 B 84.1234; BVerwG vom 20. 10.1978 BayVBl 1979, 121 m.w.N.) und aus Art. 118 Abs. 3 Satz 2 der Bayerischen Verfassung (vgl. auch Nr. 53 Abs. 4 NamÄndVwV)." (Source: VGHE BY 42, pp. 7-12)

An important reason for the looked-after name change does also not yield from the aim to continue an old family tradition. The wish of the plaintiff to carry the former family's titles of nobility Ritter von K or von K (Knight of K or of K) as part of the name may be understandable, but does not constitute a reason for a name change. According to No 46 NamÄndVwV (decree regarding the NamÄndG), which equals common legal conviction, not even the dying-out of a family name gives reason to a name change. One has to equally keep in mind that names bearing titles of nobility are only to be given by way of a name change in exceptional cases; such is already the consequence of the still valid rule of Art. 109 par. 3 sen. 2 of the constitution of the German Empire dating Aug. 11 1919 which specifies "Titles of nobility are part of the name and may no longer be awarded". (Translation by the signer)

This decision dealt with a family hailing from Hungary which had its titles relinquished by Hungary and desired to obtain a new legal last name that would again consist of their former titles of nobility. Thus, the case is not entirely the same as the hypothetical case of somebdoy born Franz Prinz von Bayern wishing to change his name to Franz Herzog von Bayern. The latter would see somebody already having a noble last name, and simply wanting to change his degree of nobility. However, the court stresses the significance of having an "important reason", and that simple family tradition does not constitute such. Also, changing the last name from "Prinz von Bayern" to "Herzog von Bayern" still means that the claimant would seek for getting a name "bearing a title of nobility" which is only to be done in "exceptional cases".

An exceptional case would not even be given if the claimant actually were awarded a title of nobility by a foreign sovereign, so the Supreme Administrative Court of the Federal Republic of Germany (source: StAZ 1960, 76). If even the award of a legally valid title of nobility does not constitute an exceptional case allowing a name change, the change of the internal structure of a German family, subject to the German and Bavarian republican constitution, would most certainly not be such an exceptional case (argument a maior ad minus).

I cannot prove that Franz Herzog von Bayern has never undergone a name change. Yet given the legal standards developed in the almost 90 years since the abolishment of monarchy in Germany, I consider it to be much more likely he did not than that he did. Blur4760 21:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're right... I had reverted it because there were errors in spacing and had meant to put in a more accurate time. Thanks for bringing this up. Charles 18:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email last night. Be sure to check your junk mail folders. Charles 13:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't get my email, just go to my user page and select the "email user" link. Charles 03:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must be quite the busy man. Looking forward to the elusive email ;-). Charles 03:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Noel; could you please quickly lend your opinion here: Empress Frederick vs. German Empress Frederick? Many thanks. Charles 01:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never, ever, copy a page from one title to another. Doing so destroys the consistency of the edit history. Take it up with Nightstallion, if you think the consensus is invalid, I really don't care. — Mar. 15, '06 [18:58] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Franz Joseph I of Austria was neither British or German, nor was he an officer in those armies. My understanding of the Category:British Field Marshals & Category:Field Marshals of Germany etc. is that they should contain officers of the rank of Field Marshall in that army. Steen Ammentorp email:[email protected] who runs the The Generals of WWII website is a librarian and military leadership expert. Although he specialises in WWII, it would be interesting to ask him if he regarded Franz Joseph I of Austria as a German or British Field Marshall. Steen has clarified a military question for me and I value his opinion. Regards, Diverman 02:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Noel, would you take a look at Talk:Victoria, Princess Royal and Empress Frederick and contribute a vote? Also, I sent you an email a while back but have been having odd email problems. Let me know if you've received it. Charles 17:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noel, could you please contribute a vote at Talk:Anne-Marie of Greece? Thanks. Charles 19:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is an absolute disaster! Charles 06:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for responding in such short notice. What I meant to say is that, as I wrote in the edit summary, I would remove in the future any attempts to reinstate that claim if no citation was given. However, a citation was given. Of course, it was a bit of bad faith from my part, but please excuse me, I just woke up! (yes I know it's insane...) :-) --Michalis Famelis 08:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Please respond to this. --Michalis Famelis 17:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noel, would you please check out Talk:Princess Anne of Hohenzollern? The naming of this page is très bizarre and I'd like to start a discussion so I can find a singular option to request for move. I'm totally for Queen Anne of Romania, but let me know what you think. Also, I'm sure the article's info on the title as Princess of Hohenzollern is incorrect, but again, let me know what you think. Thanks. Charles 07:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With your recent edit on Anne-Marie of Greece you said on your edit summary "Disambiguation link repair - You can help!" In actual fact you were not disambiguating a link (there was no link to disambiguate); you were in fact adding a link which was not there before. This is an important distinction since in one the one case you would just be making the link work more easily, but in the other case you are changing the content of the page (which some might think useful, and others not). Noel S McFerran 05:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word Greek has many meanings, for which reason Greek is a disambiguation page. Anyone reading the article Anne-Marie of Greece would likely have known that "Greek" in the parenthetical "(Greek: Άννα-Μαρία Βασίλισσα των Ελλήνων)" referred to the Greek language and not to another meaning of the word Greek, but because this parenthetical previously linked to the article Greek rather than to the article Greek language, anyone who might have clicked on the link in order to find information about the Greek language would instead have found a disambiguation page. By replacing [[Greek]] with [[Greek language|Greek]] (see the diff [1]), I enabled such a person to access the content on the Greek language without the intermediate step of the disambiguation page. This, as far as I can gather from Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, is the aim of disambiguation link repair. NatusRoma | Talk 07:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a little research, it appears that that article in general, and the first paragraph in particular, have been points of great contention. I can assure you that my edit has only improved this paragraph. NatusRoma | Talk 07:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noel,

How have you been? I brought the articles for FJ and Charles up for move. Would you care to lend some insight and possibly a vote? Thanks. Charles 20:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lady in question is relatively obscure. The German language version is included in the article. The preposition zu is odd to English readers. The various lines of Reuss used to use von, which is undoubtedly translated as of in that case, with the designations following being places. Augusta Reuss was from a line that was of a place. The preposition was later changed to zu, which still means of for the most part. This is not like a case of someone ennobled with only having a von or zu appended to the front of a surname. Charles 11:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello there,

I don't know what the correct format would be, however I orientated myself with the entry on British peers as for example here Charles Mordaunt, 3rd Earl of Peterborough, 1st Earl of Monmouth, where the titles are listed in the beginning. Finding the titles in the article can be sometimes really difficult, as often it is not given in italics or in hyphens in any way, so listing them in the beginning can help with the orientation. If you look at the article of the 28th Duchess of Alba, obviously not all of her 50+ titles will be listed in the entry. Gryffindor 23:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC) ps: About the use of British and American English you are absolutely right, I knew about that. I wasn't aware that the one was "Marquess" is British spelling and the other "Marquis" American English spelling? I always thought it was "Marquis", but yes, it should either be kept in British or in American English, so apologies if I made changes to from British to American, I wasn't aware that the two belonged to different English versions, I thought it was a faulty translation or typo when I "corrected" it. Gryffindor 00:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noel, how are you doing? Sorry about the confrontation earlier. Would you care to check this out and tell me what you think? I am certain that this woman is a hoax. The woman in question does not exist outside of WP results and a few delusional forum postings by a guy claiming to be a viscount. It was claimed that this woman is descended from the Archduke Louis, a son of Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor. Archduke Louis appears to have died childless and an Anna Victoria alleged to have been his daughter does not exist as a Countess of Habsburg-Lorraine, as claimed. Charles 01:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, leave me be. I am leaving WP. I concede to your horrible little games on titles. Charles 18:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the above. I was having a generally not-so-good day yesterday. Charles 21:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noel, it is not fair to assume that Parma matters are the sole reason for my departure. I can't remember how clear I was in my email to you, but I will stress here that it is only the tip of the iceberg. Charles 14:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC

Hi,

I read what you wrote on Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło about the attempt to rename the page into Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania, and I agree totally with you. I think as rule there can't be more than one variant of a name in the title of an article. If more than one variant is possible, the title must chose only one and the others must be explained in the text itself and redirects must be used from alternative titles. If such alternative titles were admitted in the article's title itself, then we'd have to rename, for examples, Stepanakert into Stepanakert/Xankəndi, Tighina into Tighina/Bender/Bendery or 2003 invasion of Iraq into 2003 invasion/liberation of Iraq...

I am myself implicated in a very long and endless debate which is, I think, similar to this one. It's about the need to rename the article Pope Stephen X into Pope Stephen IX, and so on until Pope Stephen III into Pope Stephen II. The historical reasons of this naming problem are detailed in Pope-elect Stephen. Those historical facts are not the matter of the debate. Everybody agrees on those facts. The problem is some users want to rename Pope Stephen X into Pope Stephen IX (or X), which is an absurdity because of the same reasons as above.

I've launched this debate on 19 February and it is endless because it seems to interest very few people and it's impossible to reach a majority. I'm now prospecting for other people who would share my opinion on the matter. If you think you have something to say about this, I would be very glad if you did on Talk:Pope_Stephen_X. I thank you in advance.

Švitrigaila 00:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your invitation to participate in the discussion about the titles of articles on popes named Stephen. I have been aware of this discussion over the past few weeks — but have purposefully not contributed since I have not as yet come to any subsantial conclusions. It is a very sticky question. Noel S McFerran 10:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all right. I thank you very much for your answer. I didn't expect everyone would vote like me. Švitrigaila 18:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has recently edited Franz, Duke of Bavaria to indicate that he is recognized by Jacobites as sovereign of these realms, as well as the British Isles. As our resident Jacobite, perhaps you could comment. Choess 23:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Ernest Aug. and constibute to the discussion there. I look forward to people assessing UE:should English be used in all these cases and how; would any sort of numeral be acceptable; what are the correct ordinals anyway; and Is there any other sustainable way to disambiguate these systematically. Shilkanni 11:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi Mcferran, I started a discussion on non-british noble titles that are untranslatable, maybe you care to join in? Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#non-british.2C_untranslatable_titles, looking forward to your insights, thanks alot. Gryffindor 13:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I did the best I can at the moment on the talk page. I've been concentrating on some vacation plans so I'm not totally "there" (mentally, that is), as you'll be able to tell by reading :-P Charles 23:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here if you'd like. Stefanp broke the 3RR in my opinion and I feel your comments would be valuable, as you've experienced the childishness as well. Charles 01:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I am only getting back to you now, I've been really busy, moved places, started a new job etc. and don't have a proper internet connection yet, so I won't be able to help out on these issues at the moment. But I took a look at it. I don't understand why the two users are fighting about such trivial matters IMO it seems to be a disagreement about the wording? Gryffindor 13:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike what you stated on my user page, "unconstructive edits are considered vandalism", according to the official rules of Wikipedia:Vandalism, section Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warning_templates, subsection "blatantvandal". Please, review them carefully. As for the warnings to user Roger_Preston, they are not threats, just reminders of these rules you are obviously not familiar with. Nicusor1983 19:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noel, you are an expert. Please convince Whig history fans (or the lazy minds) about how Bonnie Prince Charlie did not want to dissolve the Union, that the United Kingdom began with the Stuarts as opposed to the Hanoverians. Tell them how the Whigs rewrote history to blame everything on the Stuarts, whom are credited as ultimate failures with no positive contributions to the foundations of Great Britain in their Stewart and Tudor blood. The Sovereign's will is the Realm, or else it is not a kingdom. The British might as well be living in a republic, at least if the Parliamentarians had their way. Even the Hanoverian heirs recognise that the Stuarts founded the UK. Please debate that here & thanks. Lord Loxley 01:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo,

I read your comment at Talk:Austria-Este about the correctness of the article Austria-Este. As I would like to translate it into Italian, but I'd like to avoid to translate an uncertain article, I'd like to know your opinion about the state of the present article, if it is worthing a translation or if it is better to wait again for a more correct version. Thanks --Paolo da Reggio 11:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noel;

I'm not bothered at all... My sole reason for being involved with that article was through undoing extensive and messy moves. I thought, if it's here at all, it might as well look good while it can. I shall vote for deletion. Charles 01:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Noel;

Would you consider visiting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish pedigree of Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar and contributing? Thanks. Charles 23:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noel;

I don't know if this constitutes a no-no, but I am the subject of a Wikiquette alert, written up by a user that I have encountered in various royalty related articles. While none of the apparent conflicts invloved you, as an outside opinion, could you look over it and indicate whether you agree or disagree? You and I have had our share of conflicts, but I feel that you can give a fair and objective opinion. Charles 18:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Noel;

What do you think the proper name for this article should be? I'm going to bring it up for move and I think either Prince Charles of Hesse or Prince Charles of Hesse-Kassel is the right name. It was moved by a "dear friend" whom with I have had all too many encounters. Charles 16:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noel;

I like it better in all Italian or all English... Either/or. It seems that with English though, "of the" is a problem. Is it to be understood that same way that a Prinz zur Lippe is a Prince of the Lippe but said and understood as Prince of Lippe? Charles 00:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mcferran, finally a very good work in Maria Pia of Braganza page. In these years the miguelist supporters continue to vandalize Maria Pia page and write only falsity about her only in order to legitimate the Duarte Pio claims. Their talk against Maria Pia are not demostrated and they want put only doubts in the mind of the readers. In really only official documents have value and not the nosense talk. At the contrary they don’t want insert in Duarte Pio page the opposition of his claims.If Wikipedia is an impartial encyclopedia I don’t understand why of this censure. In Maria Pia of Braganza page there are some considerations: the first is the name of the heir of Maria Pia is Rosario Poidimani and not Poidomani. Please correct. The second point is there are two paragraphs about “Active claim to the Portuguese throne”. So is correct remove one. Please correct. The last point is not impartial and not correct insert Maria Pia as “impostor pretender” that you can see in the Categories in the end of her wiki-page. This categorie was added to miguelist supporter only to discredit Maria Pia claims. Also in “pretender” wiki page they insert Maria Pia and Rosario Poidimani as fake pretender and insert only Durte Pio as pretender. In an impartial encyclopedia this is unacceptable. I am sure you can understand this. If you can please intervene,thanks. My best regards. Manuel 09:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have responded on User talk:M.deSousa. Noel S McFerran 13:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not believe it violates those policies. If you feel differently, you are welcome to create, for example, a request for comment. Suedois 21:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had bothered to check out your facts (which you clearly did not not do) you would know that De Sousa is a banned vandal who is using sockpuppets to vandalise articles. He is no longer entitled to contribute to this site and it has long been WP policy that users who are banned are not allowed contribute and all their sockpuppet contributions are reverted on sight, all articles they create are deleted on sight, and all their sockpuppets are instantly banned indefinitely.

Given his history of prolonged vandalism de Sousa may well be reported to his service provider as a vandal. Wikipedia may also be taking other steps to get rid of him from this site. For now Wikipedia has had to semi-protect a whole series of articles from his attacks. De Sousa has also resorted to creating ficticious redirects. It is worth noting that de Sousa happens to be based in the vicinity of Ms Toledano's so-called heir. There is a strong suspicion that he is trying to use Wikipedia to promote the 'cause' of that so-called heir. As the issue of de Sousa may now be dealt with through the servers and through law, and de Sousa is not entitled to edit this site any longer, and the edits he posts here are through sockpuppets, I am removing the latest sockpuppet contribution by de Sousa.

I expect an apology for your slur.

FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 14:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)} [reply]

Hi Noel;

Could you take a look at this requested move? We discussed this briefly a long time ago. Whatever your opinion, you state things far more eloquently than I can. Charles 00:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a semi-related note: Do you know what Radu Duda's legal name is? An editor at the article for Radu keeps on inserting Radu Hohenzollern Veringen Duda. Charles 01:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mcferran, WikiProject British Royalty wants you! WikiProject British Royalty is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Hi,

Marcel Lefebvre is currently a candidate for the Catholic Collaboration of the Week. If you are a member you may want to vote on this. If you're not then you can join at WP:CATHOLIC.

PS Don't I already know you through the Jacobite e-list?

JASpencer 16:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if you got annoyed by the edits. The policy on Wikipedia on verifiability is in WP:V which states "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." I'm not doubting that the biography is reliable, but if you could please cite for each sentence the book, page number and (preferably) illustrative quote within the reference format then we can reinsert the text. JASpencer 21:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put up a bunch diffs from when you made major contributions to the article. Could you please review and share your method and the sources you used over on that page. I know you have already said this somewhere, but I would appreciate a formal statement here. Thank you for the contributions you made. You significantly improved the article with those edits.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reply to you in this page about the portuguese pretenders [2]. Best regards. User:82.52.180.225 18:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, I hope you can see the continue attempt to miguelist supporters to hide and mystify the real name of Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza and they insert in all the pages her pseudonym name (Hilda Toledano) that she used only as writer in salazarist period. They want deceive the readers about the identity of this pretender. In really only the official documents have value and not the talk of the miguelist supporters. The documents state that her name is Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza and her father was the king Charles of Portugal. Are there people that know a document that report as name of this woman Hilda Toledano?? Certainly NO... So I can't understand this attempt to discredit this pretendent. This is an democratic encyclopedia. Is right to censure this truth based all on official documents in order only to "legitimate" the miguelist pretender Duarte Pio?

I'm really not in the mood for this bickering, so I will just state that while I am quite sure that you do view my contribution history, I am well aware of what your opinion is on most things that I do. My defense is that I am not the first, nor will I be the last, that has done such a thing. It's hardly in error for an obscure individual. That's all I have to say. If you have anything else to say, say it on your talk page or send me an email. Charles 06:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DBD here, founder of the WikiProject British Royalty - just wondering why you changed the Stuart template from James, the Old Pretender and Bonnie Prince Charlie to their names. I don't disagree with the change, I'm just wondering what the reasons may be... Cheers - DBD^R 13:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Noel S McFerran, maybe you could be a bit more specific about your question? If a user wants to remove comments from his talk page, of course (s)he may do so if they are considered offensive. If it is a warning from an administrator (speak, warning templates of 3 three-revert rules, etc.), then the warnings may not be removed if they were posted legitimately, since they point out to other users the behaviour of the warned user. with kind regards Gryffindor 14:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please have a quick look at Talk:Archduchess Maria Theresia of Austria and tell me if I'm wrong? Thanks in advance, and best wishes, <KF> 11:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I do not agree with the edit you made to this article - lots of Wikipedia articles summarise the main points of interests about the subject in the intro. The wording here has been discussed at length and agreed upon, even in the face of a lot of opposition from a determined italian monarchist, who confirmed he is now happy with the article as it now is. --SandyDancer 13:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the article (formerly: Line of succession to the Portuguese throne) Pretenders to the kingdom of Portugual ? It should presumably moved to "Miguelist line of succession to the Portuguese throne", or how? Can we allow that inherently problematic present name to any article? Marrtel 19:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC) - Septentrionalis made a move that NPOVed much of the problem. Marrtel 23:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noel; how are you?

Regarding the use of Savoy/Savoy-Aosta in the British line of succession article, I'm pretty sure that the issue of the dukes of Aosta are known as princes and princesses of Savoy-Aosta. Do they use just the Savoy designation? Thanks. Charles 05:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Noel;

Thank you very for providing information to back up the statements within the article. I look forward to the inclusion of the citations when you have the time. Regarding the naming of the dauphin, the names did not both me as much as the persistent undiscussed moves and reverts. Hopefully everything will be clarified in the near future. I have no sources for how the other dauphins were named, but the user has moved several of them anyway. Charles 01:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Noel;

How are you doing? Recently there has been a lot of activity regarding the articles for the various French dauphins. I have started a discussion regarding the matter at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Dauphins. Would you care to contribute? I am sure that you have excellent resources at determining the appropriate names, if it is no trouble to you. Many thanks in advance. Charles 00:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you lie in your edit summary about what you'd done? Why did you revert to a version of the article that contains many errors of style and goes against Wikipedia guidelines? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not lie in my edit summary. The most important change I made was the addition of a bibliographic reference. I did not revert to an earlier version of the article. I did make a few other changes in addition to the bibliographic reference. Please review the article on Assume good faith. Noel S McFerran 19:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly that's impossible given the actual nature of your edit. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not impossible, because that is what happened. A user with your number of edits should understand that the compare revisions function compares the current first paragraph with the previous first paragraph. If one adds something at the beginning (like the tag which I moved), then it can appear that an editor has made far more changes than he actually has. When I consider the conflicts you have had with other editors, I can only encourage you even more to review the article on Assume good faith. Noel S McFerran 20:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So WP policies like AGF are trivial things. I see nothing in Noel's edits on this article that could be construed as a lie, not even as a good faith error. So what you wrote above, Mel, is a personal attack or slander. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Noel, An anonymous user removed the disputed tag from the Prince Georg of Bavaria article. As far as I know, we still haven't verified the information contained in this article from any reliable sources, so I've restored the tag. If I'm wrong, and you have seen confirmation, please go ahead and remove it. - Nunh-huh 01:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a reasonable solution. Another approach might be to add a "section dispute" ({{Template:Disputed-section}}) tag over the disputed section - in fact, I think that may be a good idea, unless you have objection, as tags seem to be reasonably effective at goading people to bring forth (reputedly existent) references. - Nunh-huh 00:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will make it so :) -- Nunh-huh 01:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm more in favour of administering a swift kick in the ass at the moment, but I shall look into the issue in a while or tomorrow. Charles 04:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noel;

I would like to raise to attention changes I have made to the disambiguation page Louis, Dauphin. I have split it into Louis, Dauphin of Auvergne (disambiguation) and Louis, Dauphin of France (disambiguation). Amazingly, within the last half hour (and within five minutes of the changes) I have already had to revert a move of Louis, Dauphin of France (disambiguation) to Louis, Dauphin. Charles 16:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noel;

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#French princes revisited. Would you care to comment? Thanks. Charles 10:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that I think your new wording is much better than the previous version. I wish I could have thought of that instead of simply deleting "officially". Thank you. Blur4760 11:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you added "(German: Ludwig Heinrich Prinz von Bayern)" to the article. Technically, that is not the correct translation of the English Prince Ludwig of Bavaria as that would either be "Prinz Ludwig Heinrich von Bayern" or "Ludwig Heinrich, Prinz von Bayern". In German, a noble title needs to be either before the rest of the name or seperated from the name by a comma. But presumably, "Ludwig Heinrich Prinz von Bayern" is indeed the name under which he is registered at the civil registry and the name that would appear on his ID or passport. So my question is: Do you want

• That the German version is a correct translation of the English version (ie it should say Prinz Ludwig Heinrich von Bayern)?
• Or that he German version is indeed his legal name (ie it should say Ludwig Heinrich Prinz von Bayern)?

If you prefered version two, I would suggest making a little footnote, stating that the German version is not a literal translation of the title under which he is known in English and that in Germany, noble titles are part of the legal surname of a person. Of course you may argue that that would be unnecessary. Yet I would think that the current version implies that "Ludwig Heinrich Prinz von Bayern" is merely a literal translation of "Prince Ludwig of Bavaria", which it is not. By the way, naturally, I prefer option two ;-). Blur4760 16:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Michaelsanders has once again reverted the article Louis, Dauphin of France (1729-1765), as well as all the articles that mention him (Louis XV, Marie Josèphe of Saxe, etc.). On the talk page, he put links to webpages that use the name "Louis Ferdinand", but all serious historical books as well as contemporary documents such as the wedding certificate of Louis XVI show the name "Louis" only. It may well be that he was baptised as "Louis Ferdinand" (and perhaps other Chritian names as well), but only Louis was used. So what do you suggest we should do? It's a bit as if a crazy editor started to change all the articles talking of Louis XVI and called him "Louis August" just because that's the Christian names he received when he was baptised. Why do things like that only happen on Wikipedia? People want to be plus royaliste que le roi. Godefroy 23:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest you have a look at Michaelsanders' user page, where we learn, among other things, that "If I believe that I am right, I will fight". I think attitudes like that are totally detrimental to a good editing atmosphere on Wikipedia, and from what I can remember of the editing rules, it is the complete opposite of what a good editor should be. Godefroy 23:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit at Jacobitism. Prior to my edit, it linked to a disambiguation page where the nearest choice would have been the U.S. Episcopal Church. I missed the best choice for the wiki-link -- glad you caught it. 67.101.243.74 22:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have "caught it" were it not for your edit in the right direction. Noel S McFerran 22:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm just checking my messages now. I was not on Wikipedia these past days. I think the only way to deal with this young and obstinate British student is that we act in unison. Tell me which day you can be on Wikipedia, then let's plan to be both editing on that day, and let's correct the articles where he added "Ferdinand", and if he reverts again (which he probably will), he will cross the 3RR line before the two of us. Godefroy 01:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A number of royals have been moved as shown here. They might need to be addressed. Also, I sent you a private email on a non-related manner. Charles 21:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noel;

Thanks for the note. I added the I&RH because it had already been given for her. For me though, that raises an interesting question: When Austria was elevated from archducal to imperial status, did that apply to the entire house of Habsburg-Lorraine? I can see why it wouldn't and why it would not. It would be interesting to get clarification on the matter. I do, however, think that the imperial status should be included if it was there. Charles 18:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I see that you moved this article back to Guy Stair Sainty. Your edit summary said "overwhelming usage," and I didn't quite understand what that meant. Can you clarify a little bit on the issue, please. Thanks.--Eva ^bd 17:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Eva ^bd 18:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Noel, I insert some correct and impartial modifications in Hilda Toledano page: 1- the libel suit in Italy against Guy Stair Sainty "It is nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the case nor the claims of Mr Poidimani which have not even been addressed by the court as yet" . Infact these are Stair Sainty words and you can see this here [3]. So I insert this also in Guy Stair Sainty page. 2- I have added a external link concerning the violence against the Royal House of Portugal, Constitutional Line by the Brazialian Culture Journal. 3- I have added the spanih version of Maria Pia of Braganza. In Duarte Pio of Braganza page I insert an important (and famous in Portugal) critique web site of Duarte and this news: “On March 17, 2007 the portuguese press reported the news that after the People's Monarchist Party president (Nuno da Camera Pereira) charge there will be a criminal trial against Mr Duarte Pio of Braganza for theft and unlawful use of the "São Miguel da Ala" Order.[4]” but the Duarte Pio supporters continue to delete this. Why?This is only a vandalism against the freedom of opinions. I insert also in pretender page the truth about: “Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza, was the (illegitimate daughter of Carlos I of Portugal. In the 1982 the Sacred Roman Rota confirmed her baptisimal documents with the paternity of the king and the presence of a document signed by King Carlos granting her the rights of the princes of Portugal.” But always this miguelist supporter continue to delete this and put his libellous version. I am also disgusted that this people insert Hilda Toledano as name of her wikipedia article and not her real name Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza. This is their method in order to discredit this pretender... Is possible and correct for you in a democratyc encycloepdia this censorship against this lady and her heir? I hope you can see that my contributiones are not vandalism....My best regards, Manuel de Sousa

Hi, please see my last consideration in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hilda_Toledano , thanks.

I noticed that you know a lot about monarchies. Do you know what would happen if the French and German Imperial families go extinct? There are only about 3 Bonparte heirs and only about 6 or 7 Hohenzollern heir. What happens to the claims to the thrones? If you know the answer, could you please post it on the line of succession pages please? Emperor001 21:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Noel;

Do you know the title of ancestress #27, Louise Isabelle of Kirchberg? Roglo gives her as of Kirchberg but with the title of countess of Sayn-Hachenburg. Is Kirchberg also comital? Charles 01:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Princesses lost the HRH upon marriage and got HH in stead. Sverre Magnus was given HH directly when he was born. See: http://www.kongehuset.no/c27259/seksjonstekst/vis.html?tid=28435

Inge 10:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noel, can you take a look at this? I am trying to find the proper designations for these dukes, or what the designation *could* have been. Thanks! Charles 16:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article about Konstantine Nikolaievich from start to finish and I used an extensive use of different sources to write it. The use of names is rather arbitrary for royalty; the closer English version to their original names is always preferred. The names of the Romanovs who were Russian by birth were first written in Russian, second in French, which was widely used in court ands society until the late nineteenth century, then in English an so for. The versions of the names used in different source vary greatly. The version generally used now is Konstantine. However, some books have opted for Constantine.

In any case, either Constantine or Konstatine the use of translated names is arbitrary. I do not have interest in any controversy in this matter. If I chose Konstatine over Constantine was solely because it was the English version of his name that most closely resembles the Russian form of the name. It is also the one who has gained more acceptance in recent years in the English-speaking world when referring to not only Grand Duke Konstantine Nikolaievich, but also to his son, the well-known writer Grand Duke Konstantine Konstatinovich Romanov. He used the pen name KK from his initials. Konstantine has taken more acceptance in recent authors including biographers and Romanov’s scholars Greg King and Penny Marshall. In their book, Gilded Prism from which great deal of information for this article was taken, they used Konstantine.

Miguelemejia 3 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguelemejia (talk • contribs) 02:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. My point was to explain why I chose Konstantine over Constantine. In any case I do not have any interest in petty controversies. Miguelemejia

Hm. Someone had Charles Hughes as titular King and I thought, well, that is true, he is the male-line heir-representative, so why aren't the others the same? I thought this reason was why the ducal family of Parma styled themselves "Royal Highness". Charles 15:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for drawing my attention to an editor's pattern of re-naming articles and categories to "House of", without respect to applicable scholarship or prevailing WP naming conventions. I will be revising my vote to take that information into account. I trust that you will continue to apply this same standard to royalty-related articles fairly and consistently, because it betters the encyclopedia and sets an example for us all. Thanks.Lethiere 03:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would be interested in this somewhat odd discussion. The user is pushing for inclusion of information stating under what particular circumstances we would have Her Majesty Felicitas, Queen of the United Kingdom. Charles 02:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Noel. Signor Poidimani does now claim to be descended from Luis I. On the family tree two-thirds of the way down this page [5], you can see the line of descent he claims (a dotted one with question marks; clearly the genealogist wishes to dissociate himself from the suggestion that this descent might be authentic). It seems Rosario realised he needed something a bit more convincing than himself and Senhorinha Toledano's claimed 9th century common ancestor Bosone of Burgundy! Jess Cully 11:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe wikipedia should use Louis Alphonse and not Luis Alfonso? His Spanish birth certificate, his French identity card, his European passport use Luis Alfonso.. Additionally whenever he is mentioned in any press or magazine they also use Luis Alfonso. Before I change the article again I would like to know your reasons as to why it should be Louis Alphonse. Callelinea 06:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) say to "use the most common form of the name used in English"; that is "Louis Alphonse", not "Luis Alfonso". "Louis Alphonse" is used by the Associated Press (June 8 and 9, 2004), The Times (June 9, 2004; June 22, 1999; March 19, 1991), The New York Times (June 9, 2004), Reuters (June 7 and 8, 2004), and Agence France (October 2, 2003; October 7, 1993; January 21, 1993). It matters not what a person's name is on various official documents; most current royalty, many actors, professional wrestlers, and others are not given their legal names as the titles of wikipedia articles. I am not pushing a Legitimist French agenda here. I have resisted attempts by other editors to rename the article about Louis Alphonse's father from Alfonso to Alphonse (since in English he is universally known as Alfonso). Similarly when I created the article on Alfonso's younger brother I titled it Gonzalo de Borbón y Dampierre (since he is not known in English as Gonzalve or as Duke of Aquitaine). It is merely a matter of "the most common form of the name used in English". Noel S McFerran 13:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting me that info. I was basing mine on magazine articles and the 1999 Almanach de Gotha, but yours makes sense. Callelinea 13:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noel;
Thanks for the note on my page. I think the only reason why the move seems controversial from the history is that there were a number of moves but all can be deduced to simple errors on the part of the two editors responsible for the four moves. I think it is more a matter of confusion than anything and not one of controversy. I have made note of such at the RM page. If you feel an RM is better, I imagine it will be clean and simple and not a problem. Just let me know. Charles 02:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you note that, I see it as well. I did not even realized that I used the "C". Since Kassel/Cassel at any rate is the proper differencing name for this landgrave and of his line and since Wikipedia uses Kassel for the Hessians, do you think I could relist it as non-controversial as Frederick II, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel since Wikipedia has de facto standards calling for the use of Kassel? Or would you prefer a vote to the form with Cassel if there is sufficient reason, in your opinion, to have it included? The spelling change between moves was between an editor and himself and ended up, after all, at Kassel. Charles 03:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the listing and relist as a vote/discussion for Frederick II, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel since Hesse-Kassel is much more prevalent on Wikipedia, although my personal preference is for Hesse-Cassel. Thinking now, at the time Cassel was always used in English and I think it is affected to bend for Kassel, but that is a separate discussion and I've learnt now to make a distinction between my instincts and preferences and the guidelines we follow here. Charles 03:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had just started but have removed it. Please be my guest and post there and I shall follow with a response and my opinions/ideas/etc. Charles 03:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the discussion at Talk:Frederick II, Landgrave of Hesse. Please reply there. Charles 21:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noel, I am disappointed at your insinuation of me not being forthright. I am following what was told to me by an administrator regarding redirecting vs deletion, where deletion is not always necessary. The redirected pages contained information such as : date and place of birth, parents and siblings. I even made a point of leaving the articles of arguably notable people (even those I personally feel are not) intact. Many, many of the articles (such as the counts and countess of Rosenborg) were mere facsimiles of one another and present no distinguishing information about the person, certainly nothing beyond an association to a notable category of people (where an individual person may or may not be notable). Given that, it would be a tedious and wasteful effort to individually nominate each and every individual for bureaucratic reasons, or to appease ultra-fanatic royalists, and I went with what the admin suggested and redirected to the truly notable ancestors or family pages. Charles 05:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I sent you an email a night or so ago. Please reply to it if I am under any sort of misunderstanding. Charles 21:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The motorcade description you added in 2006 included 7 vehicles. Albertini stated there were 4 vehicles and Dedijer state there were 6 vehicles. Could you please cite your source so that this can be cleared up? Werchovsky 20:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Two other editors have expressed an interest in deleting the bulk of the motorcade material and substituting just information critical to the bombing and shooting, that task would probably fall to me and I would be substituting in some material from Dedijer. Like many authors on the subject of the assassination Dedijer is not always right when you actually look at the primary sources, so I would not be surprised if your account is correct, but if there is no page reference it can't be kept in as the article is now a "B-class" Military History article. Please comment soon.Werchovsky 07:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Tract 90. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Nn123645 03:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I purposefully removed a large amount of content from this article because it does not describe the content of Tract 90, but instead the content of the 39 Articles. I explained this in my edit summary. Your message suggests that I did not explain this. Noel S McFerran 03:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Nn123645 03:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a stupid question, but it seems you may be an expert on this subject and might be able to answer it at Talk:Franz, Duke of Bavaria#Religion? ... thanks. - Animagentile (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it counts in consideration of status and rank for marriage and orders and other things like that, but it isn't entirely relevant to Wikipedia. Where ancestry has been discussed as an important issue in a royal's life is where it would truly count, for instance it a countess was admitted as an equal marriage partner to an archduke on the basis of an examination of her ancestry. I think it is important for kings, queens and the like, but not necessarily for cadet princes, princesses and the like. Certainly not most of them. I believe there was an issue with archduchesses and the Order of the Starry Cross and ancestry (don't quote me), but even that doesn't require all sixteen great-great-grandparents to be noted, just an explanation in the article, perhaps, and a sentence about a non-noble great-great-grandparent. Remember, the seize-quartiers we use are just names and say little to nothing about the status of the individuals listed unless it is obvious through the lack of a title. Charles 21:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you didn't notice the source I indicated in my previous edit summary. I also explained in more detail in Charles' talk page, and a thread on a associated topic is here. All serious monarchist scholars acknowledge the distinction of "dynastic" for the Vassouras Branch (including the main online sources, which I named). The attempt, by Prince Gastão, to have the abdication of Prince Luiz of Alcântara nulyfied has received no support and is, today, completely discredited (see the associated thread I linked). There is absolutely no POV in this. The POV would be to give some level of validity to a claim made briefly by a single man, and now abandoned even by him (in this case, a pro-Prince Gastão, or maybe "pro-Petropolis Branch" pov). Regards, Redux (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noel, I would appreciate your input on two discussions I have initiated at WikiProject Biography/Royalty, one on template standardization and one on name of the WikiProject and redirects to it. Thank you. Charles 04:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. I take your point, however, I'm hoping to improve these articles drastically and I think the way forward is the nice, tidy, concise (not to mention correct form!) of Vyner of Sarawak, &c., rather than the long-winded Charles Vyner Brooke which, of course, doesn't account for his royal title. Merry Christmas! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Michael I bound by the last royal constitution? I can't see any reason why he could alter the line of succession as he "did". Charles 08:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noel, thank you for the reply. For the time being I have added Margarita as an heir (but not the heir) at Pretender and noted the apparent new title for Radu Duda. If you believe these edits were made in haste (I am unsure myself), please let me know and/or revert them. Charles 14:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ms.McFerran,

I was trying to look you up at the Universtiy directed to by your introductory information. Unfortunately, someone else (Jonathan Bengtson) is the librarian. Is there any way I could contact you so as to explain and elucidate in respect of my ancestry?

I did not refer to Maria Theresa you assumed I did. It was my grandmother, step-sister of Zita, that I spoke of. I have never known her, but offer my presence in evidence of the fact that she most probably was not mentally retarded (I am a life member of Mensa, by the way, founder of Einstein Society in Central Europe) - not significant, but, perhaps, telling.

If you wish, leave me a message at [email protected]. I would like to know what reputable sources you found saying that probably more than half of my great grandfather's children Robert I were mentally retarded. I called my cousin Carl and he would not vouch but the statement does seem too harsh. If you wish, you can talk to my grandfather Otto (Habsburg) - I can provide you with a direct line and set up an telephone appointment.

It is not of great importance to me, since I am not primarily preoccupied with the past. However, people ought to have access to truthful materia.

Thank you.

Very Truly Yours,

Erzherzogin Sarah-Fridoline Maria Antonia Teresia Habsburg, PhD

PS:(I currently live in the United States) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fridoline (talk • contribs) 08:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to say that I believe that the above writer is a fraud. There is no archduchess member of the house of Habsburg named Sarah. This leads me to believe that her other claims are also false. Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought this document on the WAF may interest you. Please follow the link: http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269884

Kind Regards,

C.P-L 69.86.213.32 (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Were you able to access the pictures? 69.86.213.32 (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem determined to support a known fraud on wikipedia. It is extremely POV to continue to do so. Fact supports that she was not who she claimed to be. She possessed no authentic documentation to back her ridiculous claims. She made no attempt whatsoever to contact King Manuel II when he was alive and has been repeatedly publicly disowned by the Braganzas and serious historians as a fraud. I wish you would desist in perpetuating her myth as that is what it is. There is no evidence she was who she fraudently claimed to be. It is bizarre to be perpetuating it. She had no rights whatsoever to the non-existent Portuguese throne. She was no descendant of any Braganza. Please desist in your behaviour in trying to create a false situation for the rest of wikipedia users. There is nothing to discuss about this obvious fraud. If you are indeed interested in Portuguese history and the Braganzas please do further research. One wonders whether you believe in Anna Anderson, other imposters and fairies as well? Finneganw 05:33, 21 March 2008

The objections have been explained. You obviously have an agenda. It's totally pointless discussing the matter with you as you have no desire to face reality about an obvious fraud. Finneganw 05:20, 22 March 2008

I have responded on Finneganw's talk page. He has not contributed even one single time to the discussion on the page Talk:Hilda_Toledano.

I have responded and discussed the matter here. You are not interested in any form of rational debate. That is quite clear with your continuing with your very POV opinions. No point taking the matter any further. You just continue to revert to POV article. I've got more important things to do than waste precious time in an extremely pointless discussion with you. Finneganw 03:55, 23 March 2008

You should read what appears on portuguese version of Template:Portuguese Pretenders and stop your vandalism about this subject. I don't know who you are and where you live, but in Portugal the lady Maria Pia of Braganza (Princess Royal of Portugal and Duchess of Braganza) was recognized by many Presidents of the Republic (ex: Mário Soares, Marcelo Caetano, etc.). She was injusticed during many years and the most part of people still living under the lies of the Miguelist Line (that was banished by the Queen Maria II of Portugal). If you prefer live under their lies, ok. I'm tired with this question. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend you to watch some official videos (one of them from RTP, the public television broadcaster of Portugal) about the REAL royal family of Portugal: Vídeo 1 and Vídeo 2. Thank you. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:84.90.92.195 is a banned user. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. You assume that you are a defender of Duarte Pio's cause and you prefer spread lies about the dinastic qustion in Portugal. But remember this: Wikipedia isn't a political show! 84.90.92.195 (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Noel;

Thank you for the note. Silly me, who uses AFD much more than PROD, totally forgot that any editor can remove the deletion proposal. How embarrassing! I contend that improvements have not been made though solely because adding more to an article does not mean that it is improved. If it is removed again I will put it up for AFD. Again, thank you. Charles 01:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noel;

Don't you think Francis' article here on Wikipedia should list his full title, that being Duke of Bavaria, of Franconia and in Swabia; Count Palatine by/of the Rhine? We list dynastic titles for many others. Also, let me know how that email is coming along ;) Charles 18:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "in English" bit as none of the other templates use it. I will reply to the other message soon. Charles 22:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first bit isn't useful in the least. I will remove them shortly unless you get to them first. Cheers. Charles 22:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Noel;

I actually completely missed your first message urging caution. Unfortunately, I have fallen prey to (an) editor(s) (I am not going to be specific) who engages me as a tactic solely to provoke me and subsequently discredit me. I really had no plans of moving any other pages for a while. Margarita simply stuck out like a very sore thumb and I moved that page (thinking about it, I probably missed her defaultsort and should fix that...). Regarding the comments at the Orléans page, an editor there says such things about me all of the time. I have become uncivil and therefore should probably take a very, very long break. My contributions here are appreciated by few. I imagine if I was here under another name doing the same thing that it would provoke less response than it does now simply because those who disagree with my actions disagree with them by default now if my name is attached to them. I won't edit under any other name than my own though. Another thing, I am entirely convinced that Olga is a princess of Denmark and have seen no sources to convince me otherwise. I don't think even M is enough of an idiot to get that wrong. I would prefer continuing a discussion via email but if you insist upon Wikipedia then that is fine. I am disenchanted with this site at the moment and probably should leave it, not for others (oh God no, never for them) but for myself. Charles 00:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In the situation I highlighted, I believe Ddstretch could have been gentler. An inexperienced user had spent a time creating some categories, believing he was improving Wikipedia. Ddstretch comes along, without acknowledging the hard work put in by the user, and basically tells him that he's been reported to Wikiproject, where Ddstretch knows the users actions would be torn apart. A similar thing happened to myself when I was new, so I know how demoralising it can be. I believe Ddstretch should have given more thought to the user's feelings and spent some time discussing the issue with the user one-to-one first. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is interested in this proposal anymore lots of editors have had their say, is it any surprise not many people are saying shut it down or keep it alive. I believe three editors have suggested closing it (User:DBD, myself and User:PrinceOfCanada) one (User:Charles) believes that it's already shut or something along those line? There is a natural course of events this proposal has been posted at the relevant Wiki projects to gain input from the community, it has been running since 18 May how much longer would you like it to remain open for? - dwc lr (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one was interested in it the moment I closed it. Don't twist something you protested in your favour lest you wear the stamp "hypocrite" as a mark of your actions. It was only open until the end of May. Charles 03:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, McFerran; I´ve noticed your interest about articles concerning the pretendents of the Portuguese throne. I moved the article of Maria Pia to the title above, since "Hilda Toledano" was really just her literary pseudonym. By the other hand, "Maria Pia de Laedo" is her only "verifiable" name, since it was her mother´s surname. I put this explanation at the introduction of the article; could you please give a look? This title was adopted by French and Spanish Wikipedias and, I hope, the Portuguese one. Cheers! --Tonyjeff (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, McFerran! Be carefull with the "friendly contributions" of the user Tonyjeff (because he doesn't present any verifiable sources about this subject and is a BIG supporter of Duarte Pio's pretender). You really should move the article to Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo Bragança or Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha Bragança, because this was the name she used, is most known by and is also her real name: watch this official document of baptism. Please, delete the name "Maria Pia de Laredo" because it's a false name (and just based on her mothers name)! 84.90.92.195 (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, the information is more correct! But, if you can, you should also put a redirect on Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha Bragança or move the article for this second name (because all members of the Bragança-Wettin family in Portugal used always the name Gotha: "Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha Bragança" (see, for example, the name of her claimed father Carlos I of Portugal). Anyway, congratulations for your contribution! 84.90.92.195 (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Pia definitely had and used the name "Gotha": Please see thePeerage.com - A genealogical survey of the peerage of Britain as well as the royal families of Europe. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Mcferran! Now I found another excelent source that prooves the real name of Maria Pia. In the famous website of genealogy: The WorldRoots Royal Pages you can find an excelent information about European Royalty and Nobility, and about the Royal House of Portugal you can find Maria Pia referred as the real (illegitimate) daughter of King Carlos of Portugal and using her father's family name: Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha Bragança.

You can find this list:

4.1.1.2.Ferdinand (1785-1851); m.1816 Antonie (1797-1862) dau.of Pr Franz Josef von Kohary 4.1.1.2.1.Ferdinand, King Consort of Portugal (1816-1885); m.1836 Queen Maria II da Gloria of Portugal (1819-1851) 4.1.1.2.1.1.King Pedro V of Portugal (1837-1861); m.1858 Pss Stephanie von Hohenzollern- Sigmaringen (1837-1859) 4.1.1.2.1.2.King Luiz of Portugal (1838-1889); m.1862 Pss Maria Pia of Savoy (1847-1911) 4.1.1.2.1.2.1.King Carlos of Portugal, b.1863, assasinated 1908; m.1886 Pss Amelie d'Orleans (1864-1951) 4.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.Crown Pr Luiz Filipe (1887-1908; assasinated with his father) 4.1.1.2.1.2.1.2.King Manoel II of Portugal (1889-1932); deposed 1910; m.1913 Pss Auguste Viktoria von Hohenzollern (1890-1966) 4.1.1.2.1.2.1.3.Maria Anna, b.and d.1887 4.1.1.2.1.2.1.4.[illegitimate by Maria Amelia Laredo e Murca] Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha Bragança, b.Lisbon 1907; m.1st 1925 Francesco Javier Bilbao Batista (d.1932); m.2d 1939 Giuseppe Manlio Blais (1891-1983); m.3d 1985 Antonio da Costa Amado-Noivo (b.1953) 4.1.1.2.1.2.1.4.1.Francisca Bilbao, d.1982 4.1.1.2.1.2.1.4.2.Cristina Amelia Blais, b.1947; m.Miguel Ortiz y Berrocal (b.1932) 4.1.1.2.1.2.1.4.2.1.Carlos Miguel Berrocal y Blais, b.Verona 1976 4.1.1.2.1.2.1.4.2.2.Beltrao Jose Berrocal y Blais

Please, if you can, move the article Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Bragança for Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha Bragança, and make the redirect in the first one. Remember that all members of the Bragança-Wettin family in Portugal used always the name Gotha: "Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha Bragança" (see, for example, the name of her father Carlos I of Portugal). Thank you very much for all attention. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another good source Genealogy of Kings and Kingdoms referring Maria Pia as Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha Bragança and also recognizing her and her daugther Maria Cristina Amelia as Princess of Portugal. Duarte Pio, Duarte Nuno and his father was just pretenders of Braganza Line, because the last Royal House in Portugal was the Braganza-Wettin and not Braganza. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am contacting you because you participated in a recent discussion at Talk:Julian the Apostate about changing the title of the page. That discussion closed, and immediately afterwards a new proposal was created to move the page to Julian. Please give your opinion of this new proposal at Talk:Julian the Apostate#Requested_move_2. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi there,

I understand that they were titled that way, however Wiki convention on royalty requires the naming of a territory, not a family. Prussian princes are also not listed as "Prince X of Hohenzollern". Gryffindor 23:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware that Savoy is a territory, thank you very much. However the higher designation in this case was Sardinia, not Savoy. Gryffindor 11:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. But I don't really care too much about this topic to get into a further discussion now. Nice work btw on adding Pantheon of Illustrious Men, if you have more info about the other royal sites please by all means. Gryffindor 08:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me in the direction of Willis's online genealogy information? I can't find it myself. PatGallacher (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if you any info to add to this article Isis Simone (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also do you know how to set up a User Talk page where one is able to type up the article before actually entering into English Wikipedia Isis Simone (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to pretty up on the Jacobite descendants and wondering if there was more info on this person? Isis Simone (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Give me a week to work on it to give it increased notability. Let's discuss its possible deletion at that time if I'm unable to meet the qualifications of notability. --Caponer (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will probably have seen it, but if you haven't by some chance, you might be interested in the obituary of Jacobite David Gorden Allen d'Aldecamb Lumsden of Cushnie. - Nunh-huh 21:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do my additions give the article notability or does it require more? Let me know what I can do to improve it. --Caponer (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi there Noel,

I restored the original name of the article which was moved without consensus, obviously getting accused of unilateralism. IMO the correct name is Crown of Saint Stephen is it not? Never heard of it as the "Holy Crown" in English. Gryffindor 23:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand (now). I was confused because his wife was still listed as The Duchess in Bavaria. Surtsicna (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC

Or I know that there is to write in the discussion page and if you pay attention I have done it or in all those that I have changed the title, but the users who revert this do not do it. Morhange or Caponer is limited to undo what I do without discussing, without reasoning and without debating, they only impose its radical monarchic point of view skipping even the norms of convention of names of wikipedia. If they do not want to discuss and single to impose, what we do? talk --Hinzel 08:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor recently boldly trimmed Line of Succession to the British Throne. Another editor objected. Please contribute to the discussion to determine if there is a consensus to support this bold edit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Legitimist line of succession to the English and Scottish thrones in 1714 has now been nominated for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in view of the discussion on the 1714 article I am inclined to restore this one. However, since you obviously are expert in this I seek your advice as to whether it should be. Is this also historically significant? Can it also be well sourced? TerriersFan (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)