Jump to content

Talk:Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia

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

I'm confused by the naming

[edit]

The first paragraph of this article calls its subject "Crown Prince Alexander II". I don't get it. If he were a monarch, or a deposed monarch, then I could see "King Alexander II". But how in blazes can he be "Crown Prince Alexander II"? The numeral doesn't belong there!

There are other examples of deposed kings giving themselves regnal numbering, for example Crown Prince Nikola II of Montenegro.James Frankcom (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citizen Aleksandar (Alexander) Karageorgevitch never was a king, let alone a deposed king. His father was a king at the time of his birth so technically he could have proclaimed the son a prince legally, but the proclamation should have been adopted by a regularly elected Assembly, which never occurred, as they were in exile and the Assembly could have only been elected in the country. Out of courtesy we may -- if we so choose -- call Alexander a "prince", nothing more than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.123.1 (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

misc

[edit]

Moved from RC Patrol:

Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia - does anybody know the order of his wives? An anon changed them, but I have no idea which is correct. RickK 03:38, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
They're in the right order now. Added additional info. - Nunh-huh 21:32, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia to Serbia

[edit]

changed to serbia because there is no Yugoslavian country anymore. Croatia, SLovenia etc. do not recognize him as a crown prince.

now that's just foolish. no country recognizes him as crown prince.--Jiang 21:16, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. It's back at Yugoslavia now. - Nunh-huh 21:21, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please I live in Serbia so I can tell you that he is recognized here. Of course he is not recognised in other countries. If you wanna talk like that than Yugoslavia doesnot recognise him either, because he visited Yugoslavia maybe once or twice before it changed it`s name and he never visited Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Now he lives in Serbia. He is not recognized as king but only as Crown Prince. Avala 13:55, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's not so much a question of who "recognizes" him, as it is a question of how titles work - or perhaps better put, it's athe fact that he once was recognized as Crown Prince of Yugoslavia but has never been recognized as anything of Serbia. His father was king of Yugoslavia, and he was crown prince of Yugoslavia. Then his father was deposed. Deposed kings and their children in general retain their titles - even after the state they once ruled changes its form of government or even ceases to exist. What they don't get to do is change those titles if the nation's name changes. Aspirants to the titles of deposed rulers don't change the title: no one ever claimed they were Emperor of the U.S.S.R: they were claimants to the throne of Russia. The members of the Hanover dynasty that purport to carry the title of "Prince of Great Britain and Ireland" did not get to change their titles when that nation became the "Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Crown Prince Alexander is trying a sort of "sleight of hand" in which he retains the title "Crown Prince Alexander" but changes the "of Yugoslavia" to "of Serbia": but that then becomes a "title of pretense" rather than one he actually holds. According to his website, his claim is that he is King of Serbia, but he uses a more "modest" title. But in the real world, he gets to change the title if he becomes king, because then he will be an actual fount of honour, or when he gets an new title from the government. the choice is pretty much use his name or use his (unchanged) title. - Nunh-huh 16:13, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Ok i checked his website and saw that he is Prestoloaslednik Jugoslavije i Srbije. I will move it to Crown Prince of Yugoslavia and Serbia. Avala 18:24, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ok, totally confused with the naming

[edit]

can someone please explain to me why this page is not listed as Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia but with the Crown Prince part first? did i miss something on the wikipedia rules, are they different for pretenders, like what´s going on? Antares911 6 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

The reason seems to be that a "lone rider" (person either ignorant of naming standards or wanting to establish own standard) opened this article, and no one has changed it. Of course, in current naming standard, Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia is more correct. (However it differs so little from what is now in use here that apparently no one has bothered to make the change). There evidently have been "bigger" attempts to change this article's heading, to Crown Prince Alexander of Serbia which of course is very untenable - perhaps the good editors here are drained of energy because of battling such attempts. 217.140.193.123 7 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)

House of Karađorđević is Serbian Royal house. They have been created in Serbia and today are found there. Here you can see that Alexander considered himself as Crown Prince of Serbia:

Offical Website of House of Karađorđević

Kingdom of Serbia Association (English)

About Royal House on Kingdom of Serbia Association Website (Serbian)

As Peter I of Serbia (King of Serbia) became King of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Alexander I of Yugoslavia from the King of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes became the King of Yugoslavia, and in the same way Alexander II Karadjordevic became Crown Prince of Serbia. --Aca Srbin (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2011 (CET)

descent from ancient Serbian kings

[edit]

From Alexander's website it seems that he is proud of his ancestry from medieval Balkan kings. Through his own family Karageorgevich, he apparently has no such royal descent, but he has that through the royal houses of Europe, which his mother and paternal grandmother belonged to. This means that almost all royals of Europe have similar Serbian ancestry...


What is at least known of Alexander's father's medieval Serbian lineage:

1. Zupan Zavida, in Serbia 2. Stepan Nemanja of Serbia 3. Stepan Provencani of Serbia 4. Stepan Uros I of Serbia 5. Stepan Dragutin of Serbia 6. Jelisaveta of Serbia, m Stepan Kotromanic of Bosnia 7. Vladislav Kotromanic of Bosnia 8. Jekaterina of Bosnia, m Erman of Celje (Slovenia) 9. Erman II of Celje in Slovenia 10. Barbara of Celje, m Sigismund of Bohemia 11. Elisabeth of Bohemia, m Albert of Austria 12. Elisabeth of Austria, m Casimir IV of Poland and Lithuania-Belarusia 13. Anna of Poland, m Bogislav X of Pomerania 14. Sophia of Pomerania, m Frederick I of Denmark 15. Adolphus of Denmark, Duke of Holsatia 16. Sophia of Holsatia, m Duke John of Mecklenburg 17. Adolphus Frederick of Mecklenburg from the dynasty of Slavonic Obotritians 18. Adolphus Frederick II of Mecklenburg 19. Charles of Mecklenburg 20. Charles II of Mecklenburg 21. Louise of Mecklenburg 22. Alexandra Fedorovna of Prussia m Nicholas I Pavlovich of Russia 23. Alexander II Nicolaievich of Russia 24. Maria Alexandrovna of Russia, m Alfred of Edinburgh 25. Marie of Edinburgh, Queen of Romania 26. Maria of Romania, Queen of Yugoslavia 27. Peter II of Yugoslavia 28. Alexander of Yugoslavia


What is at least known of Alexander's mother's medieval Serbian lineage:

1. Zupan Zavida, in Serbia 2. Stepan Nemanja of Serbia 3. Stepan Provencani of Serbia 4. Stepan Uros I of Serbia 5. Stepan Dragutin of Serbia 6. Jelisaveta of Serbia, m Stepan Kotromanic of Bosnia 7. Vladislav Kotromanic of Bosnia 8. Jekaterina of Bosnia, m Erman of Celje (Slovenia) 9. Erman II of Celje in Slovenia 10. Barbara of Celje, m Sigismund of Bohemia 11. Elisabeth of Bohemia, m Albert of Austria 12. Elisabeth of Austria, m Casimir IV of Poland and Lithuania-Belarusia 13. Sophia of Poland m Fryderyk of Brandenburg 14. Sophia of Ansbach m Fryderyk of Silesia (Legnica) 15. Jerzy Duke of Silesia (Legnica) 16. Joachim Fryderyk Duke of Silesia (Legnica) 17. John, Duke of Silesia (Legnica) 18. Jerzy, duke of Silesia (Brzeg) 19. Dorotea Jelisaveta of Silesia, m Henry of Nassau 20. Charlotte Amalia of Nassau m William Henry of Nassau 21. Charles of Nassau 22. Charles of Nassau 23. Caroline of Nassau 24. William of Hessia 25. Louise of Hessia 26. Georgios I of Greece 27. Constantin I of Greece 28. Alexander I of Greece 29. Alexandra of Greece, Queen of Yugoslavia 30. Alexander of Yugoslavia

or: 12. Anna of Austria, m William of Thuringia 13. Malgorzata of Thuringia m John Cicero of Brandenburg 14. Joachim Nestor of Brandenburg 15. Margaret (Malgorzata) of Brandenburg m John of Zerbst (Ascania) 16. Joachim of Zerbst (Ascania) 17. Anna Maria of Ascania, m Joachim Fryderyk Duke of Silesia (Legnica) 18. John, Duke of Silesia (Legnica) - same as nr 17 in list above 19. Jerzy, duke of Silesia (Brzeg) 20. Dorotea Jelisaveta of Silesia, m Henry of Nassau 21. Charlotte Amalia of Nassau m William Henry of Nassau 22. Charles of Nassau 23. Charles of Nassau 24. Caroline of Nassau 25. William of Hessia 26. Louise of Hessia 27. Georgios I of Greece 28. Constantin I of Greece 29. Alexander I of Greece 30. Alexandra of Greece, Queen of Yugoslavia 31. Alexander of Yugoslavia

Many other parallels exist too. 217.140.193.123 21:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Also his distant cousin Prince Dimitri of Yugoslavia has (some different) genealogical roots in medieval Serbia and Albania. 217.140.193.123 14:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Aleksandar Karađorđević

[edit]

Aleksandar Karađorđević is a private citizen, and has been almost since the day he was born. His entire public life occured when he was a private citizen, as no country that he could be a prince or king of has had royalty for 60 years. What's more, the country that he was a prince of explicitly abolished all nobility titles those same 60 years ago. Of all successor countries, only in Serbia does he have any support for his claims to the title, and even there his use of the title remains controversial and many if not most writers refuse to use it. It's certainly not used by anyone in Slovenia, Croatia or Macedonia, nor among Bosniaks, Montenegrins or Kosovo Albanians. He is often called "the heir to the throne of Yugoslavia" there, but not a prince.

I know that people will say that he still is the Crown Prince of Yugoslavia, according to nobility and genealogy conventions. But Wikipedia's naming convention is driven by common usage and NPOV, not by "correctness". The most common name used to refer to Aleksandar Karađorđević is "Aleksandar Karađorđević", and calling him crown prince of anything, especially of Yugoslavia (which by any definition includes terriories where governments and populations are entirely hostile to his use of the title) is hardly NPOV. Zocky 03:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went and moved pages according to the naming conventions, which means that Prince Alexander from the 19th century is at Alexander Karađorđević, Prince of Serbia, and Aleksandar Karađorđević is at Aleksandar Karađorđević. I also fixed the links and caught some bad ones, if anybody finds any more, please correct.

The next question is what should be done about his wife and children? What's the justification for calling them princes and princesses of Yugoslavia? Are they notable in any way? They certainly are not in any line of succesion to the trone of Yugoslavia, as neither such country, such throne, or such line of succession exists. Should any useful info be merged here? Zocky 04:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about his immediate family should be merged here. They really have no notability outside of the scope of being related to a pretender, so it would be fine to just merge their names and basic background to this article. E.g. a child of a famous writer or a politician does not "inherit" notability. --dcabrilo 04:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the article back... he's not a Crown Prince, so why call him one? The country he's allegedly a crown prince of, doesn't have a monarchy anymore. It's silly to play to this guy's dress-up "hey look at me I'm the king" nonsense. FCYTravis 11:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care what this article ends up being called, but changing the title every day is ridiculous. I have two suggestions for those who care about this subject:
  1. Gather a consensus before making any further changes to the title; if the issue can't be resolved that way, get mediation.
  2. There are 19 redirects leading to this article (I counted). Whoever moves this page next needs to read the part that says "Please check for and fix any double-redirects caused by this move." You move the page, you clean up the mess.
--Russ Blau (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed most of the redirects. Regarding concensus: nobody cared to explain here why it shouldn't be "Aleksandar Karađorđević". --dcabrilo 14:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is he the only person to be moved. His sons are all still at Prince X of Yugoslavia. He was born as Crown Prince, and although he only held the title for a few months, that is the highest title he has had. By the WP:NC, he should be at Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia. Prsgoddess187 14:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because we were in the middle of the discussion about what to do with those articles. I suggested a merge, since the others don't seem to be notable for much beside being his family, which simple isn't enough for separate articles. Zocky 16:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Firstly, the move was done without following proper procedure. Secondly it is standard for someone who was the legal heir to the throne at the moment of birth to be referred to as such in articles and article titles. Deposed monarchs are also named as monarch for their lifetime. It is a standard biographical approach. Their title is however a courtesy title not a constitutional one and titles like 'king', 'queen', 'crown prince' etc disappear at the death of the last office holder. If Alexander had been born after the abolition of the monarchy then he would be referred to either by personal name or as prince, depending on common usage, not crown prince as he had never been such when such a post existed. But as he was born crown prince it is normal biographical standard to refer to him as such. In addition he is not referred to as Aleksandar in English usage. The proposed move runs against naming conventions precedent, common name usage, standard biographical references, etc and is opposed on that basis. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of his birth, Kingdom of Yugoslavia did not really exist. Big part of it became NDH, and Serbia was mostly a part of "Government of National Salvation" (a.k.a. Nedić's Serbia). At Tehran Conference, Partisans were recognized as the liberation army in Yugoslavia. So, it's not that easy to say that he in fact was "born Crown Prince". It is rather POV to call him Crown Prince - he is. in what was once Kingdom of Yugoslavia, known as Aleksandar Karađorđević. --dcabrilo 21:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Legally it did. It is not WP's job to go by POV judgments on what really existed or not, just to go by constitutional law and constitutionally the monarchy was not abolished until later that year. Secondly, what he is called in Serbia is irrelevant. It is what he is called among English speakers that matters. Thirdly he is not being called Crown Prince as a statement but merely following standard procedure elsewhere. To make him different would be POV and breach NPOV. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Western_nobility) - Former or deposed monarchs should be referred to by their previous monarchical title with the exception of those who are still alive and are most commonly referred to by a non-monarchial title;. If I'm reading this correctly he isn't a crown prince as there is no Yugoslavia anymore, let alone a Kingdom of Yugoslavia of which to be crown prince. The article should be his name by which he is most commonly referred in Serbia, which would be: Aleksandar Karađorđević or Alexander Karađorđević, you can google search it. Having royal titles in a republic is kind of ridiculous imho. Are we still listing the bloodlines of Kings of France ? - FrancisTyers 22:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree to end this vote without a result, since nobody called for a vote at all. We were in a middle of a discussion here. Zocky 05:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The page was moved by two different people in breach of WP rules and conventions. This vote is to stop that mucking around (you were one of the unilateral movers) and to decide properly under WP rules where the pages goes. If a consensus is for a move, it moves. If the consensus is to stay, it stays. If no consensus exists, then under WP rules it stays. The vote is now happening and can't unhappen. It is for the community to decide what happens to the page. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me. You burst onto a page where the move was explained and being discussed, and without even starting a new section start a vote in the middle of other people's discussion. That's just not polite, don't you think?
There's plenty of discussion of this issue on this page. Please contribute to that if you wish. Zocky 20:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. There is a clear procedure laid down for changing names on pages. You chose not to follow it. I reverted your change which had not been done correctly. It is now being dealt with under the correct procedures and the name will be decided upon using the correct procedure. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever gave you that idea? Pages are moved when needed by whoever sees fit to do so, and any kind of process is involved only when a move is disputed. In that case, the correct thing to do would be to discuss your oppostion on the article talk page, i.e. here, and if no consensus could be reached, call for a discussion on WP:RM. Zocky 23:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zocky's right, the principle method of decisionmaking should be discussion, and voting used only as a last resort. Since the discussion is ongoing, I don't see a need to resort to a vote. As for the name issue--princehood is not a mere fact of genealogy; that's why countries with monarchies have specialized scholars who determine succession, and successors aren't successors until identified as such. This person's descent is a no doubt interesting thing to mention in their article, but there is no throne to which they succeed, no King of Serbia whose reign he can follow, and no authority under which is claim is verified. Demi T/C 16:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that generally people should try to discuss this before moving and/or putting on WP:RM, otherwise it makes WP:RM rather unmaintainable, and usually results in voting which may not achieve what you want. For now I'll leave it up for a while longer but its pretty clear there is no consensus either way at the moment. WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result

[edit]

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. WhiteNight T | @ | C 03:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is mostly trivia

[edit]

After thoroughly rereading this article, I've found out that there are about 4 or 5 encyclopedic sentences about him in the article. The rest is repetitive enumeration of irrelevant factoids. While these could be OK in the "Trivia" section, we need much more information about mr. Karađorđević if we want to have a useful article about him. The info merged from the articles on his family may help somewhat, but it will again mostly boost the "Trivia" section. We could check if there is any info about him in other related articles (Yugoslavia, Serbia, his predecessors, etc.) that should really be moved here. Some info about anything interesting happening to him would also be very useful. Zocky 17:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jtdirl's revert

[edit]

Jtdirl called my edit POV, so I just wanted to figure out why. Here is what I changed:

  • He is the son of Peter II, the last king of Yugoslavia, who was from the Karadjordjevic dynasty. to
  • He is the son of Peter II, the last king of Yugoslavia of Karađorđević dynasty.

because it reads better (imho).

  • Alexander is styled Crown Prince of Serbia by royalists and some media because when he was born his father was still legally on the throne, albeit in exile, but it is a courtesy title, not a constitutional office, given Serbia is today a republic. etc. to
  • Karađorđević is styled Crown Prince of Serbia by Serbian royalists. Since Yugoslavia became a republic on November 29, 1945, he has no constitutional status. At the time of his birth, the royal government had been in exile for several years, and had no de facto power in Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, which was proclaimed in August of 1945.

because I doubt any e.g. Croatian royalists would call him Crown Prince. Also, if media calls him that, they are probably sympathetic of ex Yugoslav Monarchy. Furthermore, I tried to explain why not everybody calls him that - he never really held the throne and never had an opportunity to do so. I also tried to rewrite it so there are no redundant sentences. How many ways are there to say that he in fact isn't a monarch and that he has no throne? "My version" explains the historical circumstances on why he never became a king.

If you think there is some POV in what I wrote, please discuss it here first. --dcabrilo 21:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The name 'Yugoslavia' has not been used since 2003.

[edit]

The name 'Yugoslavia' has not been used since 2003, as it is now called Serbia & Montenegro. Montengro will eventually become independent, as will Kosovo. Serbia will then be a country in its own right. Crown Prince Alexander is of Serbia, not Yugoslavia. It must be remembered that King Peter II of Yugoslavia never abdicated. He died a King, albeit, one who could never return home. - (Aidan Work 01:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

ummmm no...he will always be Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia, as his family never ruled over Serbia, Prince Ernst August of Hanover is not, Prince Ernst August of Germany, even though Hanover is now part of Germany. Mac Domhnaill 20:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "his family never ruled over Serbia"? Weren't his ancestors Kings of Serbia before they were Kings of "the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" and then of Yugoslavia? Tom129.93.17.229 23:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. The Serbian Royal family refers to itself as Serbian, not Yugoslvian, and claims the throne of Serbia, not Yugoslavia. This can be seen on their website. they've even changed their coat of arms to reflect this, removing the Slovenian and Croatian sections, and this article should be modified appropriately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.144.39 (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency and POV

[edit]

There seems to be a deep misconception that the former king Petar Karađorđević and his descendants "kept their titles". The throne of Yugoslavia was given to the Karađorđević dinasty by the Belgrade agreement in December 1918. In November 1945, Yugoslavia became a republic, officially deposed the Karađorđević dinasty and abolished nobility titles of all kinds. At that moment, Karađorđevićes stopped being kings, queens, princes, princesses of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was full legal heir of pre-WWI kingdom of Serbia, so these titles could not have somehow existed in paralel as a continued government in exile of an occupied country. To recap, they were granted some titles, which were later legally revoked.

But let's step back for a moment and ask why would we mention a person's title in the name of the article at all. The only valid reasons I see are identification and disambiguation. In both cases, great care should be taken to keep the title NPOV. POV disambiguation is no better than POV content.

In the world outside the narrow field of pretentious social occasions, tabloid press and aristocracy fandom, hereditary titles of people who hold no public office associated with that title are usually completely irrelevant, pure trivia. OTOH, when the use of these titles is politically controversial, they become real encyclopedic material which needs to be described properly.

As I see it, we are faced with a proposition that biographies of all persons in the world whose ancestors include nobles or royals should conform to a naming convention constructed to suit the British peerage system and royal houses of northern Europe, regardless of the legal status of the person considered, local customs and conventions, common usage, or political implications. That sounds ludicrous to me. Zocky 04:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we are. But it makes sense, if he was born with this title, as I understand he was, and is still called by it, that we should use it as the title of the article. It doesn't follow that anyone here supports his claim to the throne. Deb 20:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have read, on this page and elsewhere, both what title exactly he was born under and what title he uses now are somewhat unclear. We have debate above on what exact title he was qualified to at birth, based on the legal status of the monarchy at the time. I don't pretend to be any kind of expert or even to fully understand the arguments, and so I don't take a position on it. Nor should Wikipedia, I think. As for the title he uses now, isn't it "of Serbia" that he claims to be a prince? Again, I take no position on whether he is right in using that description, nor should Wikipedia. Jonathunder 20:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deb, I'm sorry, I really don't follow that argument. As repeatedly pointed out, the title that was granted to him by a country when he was born, was abolished by the same country that granted it after a few months of his life. There are no princes of Yugoslavia or Serbia, so he can not possibly be one. He does not have a title, he just claims that he does. Zocky 14:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is a complete misunderstanding of the legal, constitutional and historical framework within which royal titles operate. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In which country? Zocky 21:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In all countries. The man who would be King of Italy if Italy ever re-established the monarchy, for example, is generally called the Prince of Naples, the title he held at the point of the abolition of the monarchy. Naming tradition indeed allows descendants of monarchs to maintain usage of titles even if the monarchy and titles were abolished. France abolished royal titles over a century ago, yet everyone, including successive Presidents of the Republic, call the head of the French Royal House the Comte de Paris. The claimant to the Portuguese throne, Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza is not merely widely accepted by that title. His wedding as head of the Portuguese Royal House was attended by the Portuguese President of the Republic and the Prime Minister. The idea that a state's abolition of titles means that members of exiled royal families can't use them and are not referred to using them is demonstrably wrong. Even the leaders of republics regularly use such titles when referring to members of their former royal families.

Only in a small minority of cases do republics make formal issue of such titles and even there their opposition is universally ignored by other states (both monarchies and republics) who view such attitudes as unacceptable behaviour. Alexander is not referred to in US government dispatches by surname, for example, but by title. When some years ago the Greek Government complained that the government of the Republic of Ireland referred to the exiled Greek monarch "King Constantine II" the Irish Government told the Greeks in no uncertain terms to bog off. They said that it was standard international procedure to refer to deposed monarchs who had not abdicated by means of monarchical title and that they would continue to follow to do so whether the Greek government liked it or not. (The basic message to the Greeks was "grow up and stop acting the ass".) The US Government did likewise. When the last Austrian Empress, Zita of Bourbon-Parma died in 1989, the Vatican and offered its sympathy to her son and head of the Austrian Royal House, "Your Imperial and Royal Highness, Prince Otto". The Austrian and Hungarian republics had no problem with it. Indeed they were represented at the funeral of their late empress and queen respectively. And Chancellor Helmut Kohl addressed the head of the German Royal House as "Your Royal Highness" and used his title when they met in the 1980s.

International rules on the titles used by exiled royalty are quite clear:

  • deposed monarchs, their spouses, heirs and others, unless they abdicated, are referred to by the title they held during their monarchy's existence;
  • while titles like 'king', 'queen' and 'crown prince' are not inherited after a monarchy's abolition and die with them;
  • titles like 'prince' and 'princess' continue to be inherited as courtesy titles;
  • styles are often used as a matter of politeness;
  • no state has the right to set a mandatory demand that titles and styles cannot be used. States that try are universally told by other states "We are not getting involved in your squabble with your ex-royal family. We will continue to follow precedent and use the traditional titles and styles." FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander can keep the title of prince for life (he was never proclaimed a "crown prince" officially) as a matter of courtesy. However, he never held any titles in relation to Serbia as indeed it was his very eponymous grandfather who, acting as a regent for his own father King Peter I, abolished the Crown of Serbia, merging it and melting with losers of WW I, Slovenian and Croatian territories, to form the monstrosity called Yugoslavia.
Of course, self-styled crown prince Alexander can under no circumstances pass his self-proclaimed title (i.e. of crown prince) to his wife or to his offspring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.41.252.230 (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that every now and then some claimant calls himself "king" (or the equivalent) even though not he but his late father was in fact king. Examples are Leka of Albania and the late Afsa Wosen of Ethiopia. Tom129.93.17.174 (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A misunderstanding?

[edit]

We seem to have a misunderstanding here. The page was moved based on the premise that this article should not conform to the naming convention for royals, since Aleksandar Karđorđević is not a royal. As I see it, the arguments for the page remaining at the princely name are based on explaining what the naming convention says, not on whether it should apply in this case.

Can anyone supporting using his title in the title of the article provide any proof that any person can be a prince of Yugoslavia or Serbia? Zocky 20:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second this notion. Nightstallion ✉ 21:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Prince Alexander of Serbia is royalty. He is the Head of the Royal Family of Serbia. I think that this article should be moved to Crown Prince Alexander of Serbia. What do you think? - (Aidan Work 02:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia is not live journal. Please keep your opinions to your personal blog. Serbia is currently part of Serbia & Montenegro. Serbia and Montenegro comprises four principal political units, consisting of two republics and two subordinate provinces. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - FrancisTyers 03:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia isn't a monarchy and hasn't been in its current post Yugoslavia form. We cannot give Alexander a title of crown prince to a non-existent monarchy. All we can do is use the title he was born with, which is the standard naming protocol method of naming pretenders to thrones. It was a crown prince of Yugoslavia that Alexander was born, and so that is all we can call him. He would only get a different title if he held a new constitutional office.FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So the abolishment of aristocratic titles, which many republics have done, is null and void and the fact that some countries continue to use them is enough to claim that they can never be abolished. Curious reasoning.
I would also point out the case of Otto von Habsburg, where we specifically state that his name in Austria (where "von" in surnames was abolished, along with aristocracy) is not von Habsburg, and we certainly don't keep the article at Otto, Archduke of Austria. Zocky 15:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. Stop misrespresenting facts. The reason we don't have Otto at his old title is because he renounced it and served as an MEP. Try researching the topic of how royal titles are constructed and used internationally. It is getting tedious having constantly to correct elementary misunderstandings. The whole issue of title usage is written about extensively in thousands of books and had been debated in depth on Wikipedia and a policy agreed. This page simply follows the standard procedures used on Wikipedia and elsewhere. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mh. I'd like to note, however, that I've never even once seen Otto Habsburg being referred to as "Archduke of Austria", and I live here and am rather interested in such topics... ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 19:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, of living persons we use name with which that person is best known as, and/or from which the person's prominence (so that there is an encyclopedia article) comes from. That's reason why some people are here, for example, under their pen names, not their legal names. Sometimes somebody is prominent with two names, or in some other way there is a conflict of two names. We also must maintain NPOV. Otto von Habsburg has himself, although not perhaps fully renounced, at least taken the name Otto von Habsburg, under which he is a prominent person: a former MEP and other things. It is fully NPOV to use that name of him, and people here have long ago got research results that he is much less known as archduke. That's that. Same, for now, with a certain Simeon Sakskoburggotski, as he has himself taken such name into his use. But Alexander is actually prominent as (1) a current claimant to some throne; and (2) a former crown prince of Yugoslavia, a constitutional title he held when that monarchy was abolished. Both reasons lead us to use pretender naming. And it is easily a source of POV to use something for or against his monarchical pretension, therefore we have convention that pretenders are under the name of their title at the moment the monarchy was abolished. As that method has been used for two centuries by diplomats, works of reference, etc, we have decided we bielieve it to be the least POV of all the bad alternatives. Alexander also is mostly known as crown prince and wants himself to be known with that title (although I would not want to say of which precise territory as it would again possibly lead us to POV problems). Also those considerations lead us to use that "title at the moment of abilition" naming. We will certainly not change him to crown prince of Serbia, because he has never held that constitutional office. Remember that Alexander himself has not taken any other name than "crown princely title", and in that respect he differs decisively from Otto and Simeon. Just be satisfied that the result of our convention is not worse one in view of your own POV to the matter. If we deviate from the said convention, to either of the directions, always there will be yet unhappier people. ObRoy 07:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian

[edit]

Isn't it true that he doesn't speak Serbian? Or, that he speaks it poorly? Have a look at this, a video titled "King and Tanks" ... at approximately 2 minutes and 30 seconds we see Alexander giving a 'speech' ... he needs to read from notes and even though he has his notes to help him, he has a hard time pronouncing the words and getting the cases right. And all he had to say was "danas je najsrećniji dan u mom životu". --Daniel Tanevski talk 06:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he still has a relatively thick accent in Serbian and makes a lot of mistakes. I think it's only normal, since he first visited Yugoslavia in 1991. --dcabrilo 17:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Born in England, educated mostly in England, was living in USA... Only when in his fifties, he was able to settle full-time in Belgrade. ObRoy 07:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand. For someone who probably spoke a lot of English or French, learning a language like Serbian (or Russian, Greek, Japanese, or any type of language with distinctly non-English words) would be difficult. I speak English, and I'm currently learning French. Any French person would know immediatly that I was an American just by my accent alone. I think over time he will learn the language, especially if the county is having monarchial leanings, and I believe all three of his sons are currently studying Serbian. Morhange 15:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But he is rather old, and elder people tend to learn less an slower. Still, he apparently has never been totally unfamiliar with Serbocroat, so perhaps it's just much practice that helps enough. ObRoy 07:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

his claim/ ambition

[edit]

Since the end of Yugoslavia, he has desired the throne of Serbia, and it seems thus that he currently is Claimant of Serbia, see also his website. That is a fact, and therefire it can and should be explained in the text of the article. He should not be given any title here on basis of that claim, but the claim should be explained. So, it seems to be wrong to state that he yet is "pretender of Yugoslavia" of "claimant to thr Yugoslavian throne". That's something he was decades ago. ObRoy 08:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article should be moved to 'Prince Alexander of Serbia' or 'Alexander, Crown Prince of Serbia'. Though the historic (his birth) title is 'Crown Prince of Yugoslavia', it's misleading, now that Yugoslavia no longer existed. GoodDay 20:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Yugoslavia is a historical country, as created by the Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations, and of which it could be argued that it's breakup during the 1990s was technically illegal under the Charter of the United Nations, so is this title a historical title, now recognised out of courtesy. It can also be suggested that Crown Prince Alexander, by claiming the title and refusing to recognise the status quo, is also refusing to recognise an illegal situation. Royal titles have been illegal in Germany since 1918, and yet the descendandants of German nobility continue to use the titles as part of their surnames and there is no confusion about Germany being a Federalist Democracy. In theory the separate nations that once made up Yugoslavia could recombine some day, in part or whole as a Yugoslavian state. They are in any case united under the EU. Germany has done this and there is some discussion of the Czech Republic and Slovakia doing the same.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.242.107 (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His great great grandfather, Prince Alexander, abdicated in 1842. Would not the abdication end any future claims, by Alexander's decedents, to the throne? Additionally, since his father Peter II was put in power through a foreign sponsored (British) coup d'état, would that not have made Peter II claim to the throne illegitimate? There are of course so many other issues call into question any claim this Alexander would have to the throneTruthisfreedomandjustice (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

Are you joking, Diodecimus? Why do you insist on having a grammatically incorrect text in the infobox? You cannot say "head of House of Karađorđević". There has to be the definite article before the word "house". Furthermore, why should "House of Karađorđević" be italicised? See WP:Italics. It is not emphasised, not a foreign term, not a quotation, etc.

There is absolutely no reason to mention the years of birth of his sons in the infobox. It is never done. It is unneccessary. Should we mention the years of birth and death of his parents and spouses? Of course not!

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking)#Repeated links, it is not appropriate to link to the articles about his father, son and royal house twice. Linking once is enough.

Could you please explain why you revert again? I hope it's not just for the sake of reverting. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is everyone happy with this compromise, proposed by John K? The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[After EC] I would probably also use the definite article, but it's hardly worth so much energy. I agree with you on birth years for his sons, but the repeated linking thing seems wrong. The manual of style page you note says that the rule has "Many exceptions", and only lists a few of them. I tend to think that different lines in an infobox is pretty close to equivalent to multiple lines in a table, which is one of the specifically mentioned instances where double linking is okay. john k (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.svg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the title

[edit]

Hello,

I am writing because i tried to change the title to Crown Prince of Serbia instead of Yugoslavia. Official title of whole Royal Family of Serbia is Serbia not Yugoslavia after crash of this state. By the decree of Royal Family, they decided to keep the title before the Kingdom of Serbs Croats and Slovenes. As you know Kingdom of Serbia existed from 1882 to 1918, and two dynasties (Obrenovic and Karadjordjevic) had title of Serbia. When Kingdom of Yugoslavia was proclaimed they (Karadjordjevic) changed their title in Yugoslavia, but when the state ceased to exist they returned the title of Serbia. Can you please advise how I can change the caption of the page. I would like to clear up the confusion with titles and to put the title as Royal Family uses. Thank you in advance! Marija Marijanovic (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the related discussion at Talk:Katherine Karađorđević#Not even her courtesy title is "Crown Princess". It appears 'Crown Prince of Serbia' has never been recognised as his title by any recognised government, whereas Alexander was recognised as crown prince of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia from 1943 to 1945. The current article follows the relevant Wikipedia conventions. (Pinging @Karl Oblique, SnowFire, and JoelleJay:) Verbcatcher (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexander,_Crown_Prince_of_Yugoslavia&oldid=1251460143"