Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Talk:Prince Radu of Romania

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

Prince of Romania

[edit]

Radu is apparently now HRH Prince Radu of Romania, Prince of Hohenzollern-Veringen following the promulgation of the Fundamental Rules of the Royal Family of Romania. Whether King Michael can do this with it having a binding effect I don't know. My understanding is that he is bound by the last royal constitution and can't change the line of succession when there is not a shortage of dynasts (the Princely Family of Hohenzollern). Upon Michael's death, there might be two Romanian Royal Families, one headed by Princess Margarita and the other by The Prince of Hohenzollern. Charles 09:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Michael's Fundamental Rules are "legally" (that is to say dynastically) binding, it seems that the title of Prince of Hohenzollern-Veringen is confirmed as a Romanian royal title and style. Charles 09:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Romania is a Republic and all of these titles are nonsense. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Cifrul ASR Principelui Radu.JPG

[edit]

Image:Cifrul ASR Principelui Radu.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move

[edit]

I tried to move the original page to Radu, Prince of Hohenzollern-Veringen, but found that hard. also, accidentally I moved the page to Radu , Prince of Hohenzollern-Veringen. The main reason is the following: he is not stiled Duda anymore, just Radu, Prince of Hohenzollern-Veringen. All the other stiles of reference are malicious and rude (impolite). ES Vic (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How has he lost his original surname. Has it been replaced officially? If not, he is still Radu Duda. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a Prince

[edit]

I find it hard to believe that this encyclopedia includes this person as a Royal Highness and a Prince of a monarchy that doesn't exist anymore by virtue of a document that has been approved by a former head of state, King Michael, of that country. Clearly that document has about as much validity in a legal and diplomatic sense as the document issued by me yesterday, declaring myself Emperor of my back garden, (I don't have a back garden anyway, but still.) King Michael lacks the authority to give titles to people. So does the person with the surname "Prince of Hohenzollern" who invented the "Veringen" title for mr. Duda. Not even the excuse of holding titles in pretence applies here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of now I've made the relevant changes and a move to "Radu of Romania Duda" since the article explains that this is his legal name. Although I wonder what that might be in Romanian. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that "of Romania" is "al României" in Romanian. Therefore another adaptation and another move. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Requested move

[edit]
  • Radu al României Duda → Prince Radu of Romania — This is getting absurd. A little background: this individual, born Radu Duda, is married to the eldest daughter of King Michael, the king of Romania until 1947. The family he married into gave him the title of prince, although this carries no constitutional role, as Romania has been a republic since his father-in-law abdicated 62 years ago. Anyway, the article's current title is the result of various single-purpose accounts edit-warring over this article and the one on King Michael. It's an absurd construct and means little to the average English speaker. I say we call it "Prince Radu of Romania" - that is what he calls himself on his own website, although "Radu Duda" is a good second choice. Anything but this. — Biruitorul Talk 16:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to Prince Radu of Romania for conformity with article names of the members of the other deposed royal families (cf. Prince Dimitri of Yugoslavia and Princess Vittoria of Savoy)) bogdan (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still he's not a member of a former royal family he was born in. Radu al României Duda is his official name as a citizen of Romania and he had it officially changed into that. People may inheret titles that they hold in pretence, like the people you mention. And they are indeed generally named as such on Wikipedia. But new titles cannot be given to those not "born" with them, unless we're dealing with an existing monarchy. The move seems inappropriate to me. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

move and name

[edit]

It seems to me that this particular person, although married into a royal family, should be known by his official name, not by what he chooses to call himself. Remember that in this case the argument of holding titles in pretence doesn't add up. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the appropriate move which is a revert to a former situation. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 2nd Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: {{{1}}} Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{movereq|Radu al României Duda}}

Prince Radu of Romania → Radu al României Duda This is the official name of the person involved. He is not a Prince of Romania or any other entity by any standard that can be accepted. — Relisted  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • SUPPORT, because Radu does not hold the title Prince of Romania by conferral/recognition of an extant fount of honour, nor by inheritance, nor by tradition, nor by customary exercise of a pretender's authority. Radu's royal title was conferred by an extraordinary act of Michael of Romania, a deposed monarch, in disconformity with the laws and traditions of the monarchy from which King Michhael's authority, such as it is, flows. FactStraight (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The vast majority of English speakers would just refer to this person by their chosen style or title, just as we refer to rock stars by theirs. The niceties of entitlements don't come into it. Andrewa (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - an absurd idea. Regardless of what is official (and what is common, rather than official, is our standard), "Radu al României Duda" will mean nothing to most English readers, whereas "Prince Radu of Romania" (or Radu Duda) will actually make some sense. On his website, he calls himself "Prince Radu of Romania". The Romanian Foreign Ministry calls him "Prince Radu". Major Romanian newspapers call him "Prinţul Radu", "Principele Radu", "Radu Duda", or some such. It's rather revealing that "Radu al României Duda" gerners just 1330 Google hits, many of them Wikipedia mirrors, while "Prince Radu of Romania" has 15,700 and "Princiepele Radu al României" has 810,000. Rather than a legitimate name, this seems to be a Wiki-invention.
  • And by the way, I might add that this article and the one on his father-in-law (Michael of Romania) for years have been the scene of battlegrounds between ultra-royalist single-purpose accounts with obscure agendas. While assuming good faith for now in this particular instance, it would not surprise me if this request were linked to that group, and we certainly should not invent new naming conventions in order to satisfy their theories. - Biruitorul Talk 02:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -The move was initiated by me and I may add that the article has been known as Radu al României Duda for months before someone changed it to Prince radu of Romania without any discussion on the 6th of december and also removed the name Radu al României Duda from the article without any discussion. What sounds familiar to people or what people choose to call themselves in matters like these, should not be a standard or a valid argument. This is an encyclopedia after all. Also royal titles in Wikipedia shoud be used with some consistency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NC#Deciding_an_article_name . In general I have noticed that that consistency exists. People are only given royal titles, when they are born into extant royal families or elevated to a royal title in an extant monarchy, or when they are born in former royal families and hold these titles in pretence. In that case also wives of male royals are included. Radu simply doesn't fit into these categories and is basically a self proclaimed (or father in law proclaimed)"Prince". Husbands do not take the titles of their wives automatically and the elevation by King Michael is unofficial. The King has no authority to give titles to people. The excuse of holding a title in pretence does not apply here. A Republic may have a former royal family that uses titles but new titles for people not born to them cannot validly be created for a monarchy that doesn't exist anymore. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To me this is mainly about consistency and credibility when it comes to the use of royal titles. What would happen if we called everyone with a dubious claim to some title, by that title in the names of their articles? The information we give would not be trustworthy anymore when it comes to the subject of titles. For reference see the discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leka,_Crown_Prince_of_Albania#Titles_of_deposed_monarchs_vs._titles_of_pretenders:_How_can_he_be_.22King.22_Leka.3F on the subject of King or Crown Prince Leka of Albania. A quote from that: "If this is the case, and it seems to be, then the supposed King Leka has pretentiously usurped a style to which common practice does not entitle him. To boot, it doesn't matter if his "followers", or even the Prime Minister of the Albanian Republic, choose to call him King Leka. A usurpation of a right does not create a right, and he has no business calling himself anything more exalted than Prince Leka at most, until Albania changes its constitution to that of a monarchy and designates him as its king." I think there are some paralells between the two cases. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said, and I disagree completely! This amounts to advocacy of one side in this particular dispute. Wikipedia has a fundamental policy of avoiding this. The guideline on naming conventions (royalty and nobility) departs from the common name principle for specific reasons which don't apply here, so the underlying principle of preferring the common name should be followed. In fact it's particularly important to follow it here, because if we follow our fundamental policy, we are doing just that, not necessarily supporting one side or the other. Of course one side will be happier with the result than the other but that's inevitable either way. On the other hand, the reasons given above and elsewhere for departing from the policy seem very much to be taking a side. Andrewa (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As an absolute, unconstitutional monarch of divine right that He is (never voted in office by the Parliament in His second, current reign, but instead crowned and anointed king by the Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church), King Michael remains king until His death or until the Church anathematizes Him, whichever occurs first. He cannot abdicate or be deposed from a position in which He was appointed and anointed by God, for either of these two is a constitutional, not ecclesiastical act. H.M. King Michael is, thus, a reigning king and, as such, a fount of honour. Therefore, Radu of Romania Duda, Prince Radu, is a true prince by H.M. King Michael's decision. Nontrickyy (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's up to the closing admin of course, and it won't be me as I'm involved. But I think I should point out that were I to be the closing admin, the above vote would be ignored completely, as it seems to be based entirely on a POV. Andrewa (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If my POV and vote were to be discounted, then so should FactStraight's POV and vote: King Michael's authority as king does not flow from any law or tradition of the late constitutional Romanian monarchy, but only from God. Unlike all His predecessors, H.M. King Michael was never voted in office by the Parliament in His second, current reign, but instead crowned and anointed king by the Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church. Michael's oath as king taken in front of the pro-Nazi dictator Ion Antonescu cannot serve as a substitute for the Parliament's necessary approval vote and, as such, His oath has to be disregarded when considering the (un)constitutionality of His reign. Even King Michael Himself admits in the Preamble to the Family Rules that His legitimacy as king flows only from God, not from the people: "These Fundamental Rules, enacted by the hand of King Michael I, Sovereign Head of the Royal House of Romania (Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen), by the Grace of God, Crowned King of Romania [my note - there is no mention here of the "will of the People"] and jure sanguinis Grand Master of the Orders and Decorations of the Royal House of Romania (...)." Nontrickyy (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. My point being, you're all wasting your time by discussing the merits of your POVs here. There is a place for this. But not here. Andrewa (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You also tried to make a second point about my POV and vote: "the above vote would be ignored completely." Again, my answer is: so should FactStraight's vote, as his is also based on a POV. Nontrickyy (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that the same criteria should apply to FactStraight's vote. IMO it's the same point. Andrewa (talk) 05:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nontricky's POV is basically the only reason why Radu can be regarded as a genuine Prince. The fact remains that he has not been born as a Prince of an extant or former monarchy and that, in Romania, being a Republic, there is no mechanism for creating Princes. That should at least be recognised in the article itself and in the title of the article. Why should this person be treated in the same way as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Mircea_of_Romania, or indeed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Claus_of_the_Netherlands person, when it comes to the names of their articles. Clearly there is a substantial difference between their situations and status. Consistency is omportant in these matters.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be true, but it's not the question here. It's more, what is he known as? The proposed name seems to be one that others wish to impose on a living person against his will, for political reasons. As such it's unlikely to have sufficient currency to meet our naming conventions, and there seems to have been no attempt to show that it does. Andrewa (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposed name "Radu al României Duda" is what Radu himself changed it in in 2007. It was not imposed on him. Besides, Prince Radu of Romania is also what he is called for political reasons. The question is not what he is called. Elvis was called "the King" by some. The question is, is he a genuine Prince and how is that reflected in the article. The proposed name is not sacrosanct to me however. I would agree to changing the title of the article to "Prince" Radu of Romania, with Prince in quotation marks or something like that. As long as he article states clearly what's going on here and the title is consistently different from the titles of articles about genuine royalty. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (Hope you don't mind me fixing the rather confusing formatting... Bullet points and paragraphs don't mix!) Agree that he once used the proposed name, but that seems a poor reason for imposing it on him now. Agree that the name he has adopted has political connotations. Disagree that The question is not what he is called. In terms of Wikpedia policy that is the most important question of all. Andrewa (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your adjusments in my upmake. Your argument for the title of the article to be Prince Radu of Romania is basically that this name is what he is known as in popular culture by most people in Romania at least. I doubt that the majority ot the people in the English speaking world (we are after all the English speaking Wikipedia) have ever heard of him. I do understand your argument as such. But the naming conventions of Wikipedia also state that names of articles should be consistent and precise. Prince Radu of Romania as a name for an article about him is neither. Not when we look at how royalty is generally treated on the English language Wikipedia, nor when we actually look at what is precise. I'm not insisting on the name for the article that I initially proposed. Radu Duda, or "Prince Radu" might do when the article states clearly what is going on here in terms of what is considered titled royalty. But what a person is popularly known by may be good for popstars, but should be more precise and consistent when it comes to matters like these. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the argument for the current name is not specific to the people of Romania. It is that this is the name by which most English-speaking people would most easily recognise the subject of the article. It's flimsy, as neither side has presented any relevant evidence, and as the onus of proof is on those proposing the change I don't propose to even look for it unless the proponents present some on their side (partly because I'm guessing that the reason they don't present it is that they've looked for it and it's not there). Meanwhile we merely speculate on what the popular perception is likely to be.
    Under our naming conventions, using the style of "Prince" in the article title doesn't suggest any official, diplomatic or political recogniton of the title, just popular recognition. If you disagree with these conventions, then propose a change by all means (perhaps at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) with a heads-up at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, I think those watching those talk pages would be more sympathetic to the proposal than those at WP:PUMP which is another place you'll need to raise the matter eventually, but I could be wrong there). If the rule change is accepted but this RM is rejected in the meantime, then you can and should relist the RM. Be warned that changes to naming conventions can be quite a drawn out process even if successful, particularly if as in this case a number of controversial article names are affected.
    Disagree that existing conventions regarding precision and consistency raise any problems with the current article name. But there may be one I've missed. Can you be specific as to which convention(s) you mean? Andrewa (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to sign my vote, signing now Arkadiam (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Arkadiam[reply]

  • Comment: I'm glad this has been relisted (and not by me, as I'm involved in the discussion) rather than closed as no consensus. Similar name discussions take a great deal of time at WP:RM, so it would be good to set a precedent here if we can. This might be possible because a rough consensus (as Wikipedia uses the term) not to move can exist even if a substantial number, even a majority, of those "voting" support the move. This would happen for example if those voting to support gave either no reasons at all or only reasons that are contrary to Wikipedia policy. And of course, the greater the number of relevant votes that are cast, the more helpful any precedent will be. Andrewa (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: 'Prince Radu of Romania' would be the correct form under the special guidelines for Naming Royalty and Nobility, especially points regarding Other Royals [see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28royalty_and_nobility%29#Other_royals]. While there have been some changes of his name, this one seems to be definitive, and is gaining ground in the newspapers and other media. We could say that it is a process of transition, from the names that he has been known under (Radu Duda & Prince Radu of Hohenzollern-Veringen) to the new one, Prince Radu of Romania.

More relevantly, regardless of one's position on the substantive issue, Wikipedia attempts to describe and point to clearly recognizable and useful articles, i.e. ones that come up naturally, and with titles that are 'second nature.' Radu al Romaniei Duda is second nature for nobody, whereas, even though they might not know the legal name, many people would have heard of Prince Radu of Romania. Therefore, this name should stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas.tiger (talk • contribs) 18:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result ws no consensus to move. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Helpful contributions, and others

[edit]

(Sigh) I'll have another go. Please see Wikipedia:talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable: Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. Both sides in the above move discussion are infringing this guideline.

What would be helpful would be to quote someone notable who expressed an opinion as to whether or not "Prince" Radu is authorised to use the title, and under what circumstances and by what authority. Not your own opinions on the subject, but those of authorities. It's quite appropriate to include such material in the article, provided it doesn't infringe WP:BLP. And not just authorities that support one side or the other. What we want is an accurate, sourced description of the full range of notable opinions on the subject.

As well as WP:BLP please be aware that aspects of this may also be sub judice. Andrewa (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We had stopped discussing the topic 3 days before your warning, which was, thus, unwararnted (i.e. you used the present tense "are infringing" as opposed to the correct past tense "infringed").Nontrickyy (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree there had been no contributions of any sort for three days.
Disagree that my post was a warning, although had the behaviour in question persisted a warning would have been appropriate eventually.
Very glad that, apparently, no warning will be necessary.
I'm still interested in the possibility that, appropriately sourced, some of the material above might be encyclopedic. I'm fascinated, for example, that there's appeal above to the theory of divine right of kings. Our article on that subject says in part by the early twentieth century, it (the theory) had been virtually abandoned. Similarly, there's appeal above as to whether or not he's a real prince. To most of us, I'm guessing that the titles Prince and (even more often) Princess are mainly applicable to five-year-old birthday parties and fantasies such as Shrek. I'm guessing that many real princes don't put the title on their business cards.
But obviously there are still those to whom such titles are very real and important, otherwise none of the above discussion would have taken place. Our article at Prince isn't a lot of help, it leaves a lot of this vague.
So, who are the authorities? Obviously in some cases, there's a ruling monarchy to authorise use of the title. But in this case and many others it's not that simple. Andrewa (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You ask who the authorities are. In my view there are no authorities. The monarchy of Romania doesn't exist anymore. However we (at least here on Wikipedia) still call the male line descendants of former royalty and their wives, Princes or Princesses. Former Kings are also still called by their titles. Legally all members of houses that ruled former monarchies are not Princes anymore, with some exceptions (Like the Princes of Greece who are also Princes of Denmark). That Wikipedia exdents that courtesy to male line members of former Royal families doesn't imply that Princesses can call their husbands a Prince. More importantly I don't believe that the religious notion of the divine right of Kings is applicable in a situation where the law is conscerned. Entitlement of this kind is not (as Nontrickyy would have it) a matter ruled by religion. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fount of honor

[edit]

A fount of honor that can bestow royal titles is not extant legaly in Romania at this time. Therefore I added the sentence "Since there is no authority in Romania anymore, that can legally bestow titles of royalty or nobility, Radu's title of "Prince of Romania" with the style of "Royal Highness" has no foundation in extant law. Since he was not born as a descendant of a former Royal Family, his claim to the title also has no relation to the habit of descendants of former reigning families of holding titles in pretence. Radu's legal name is "Radu al României Duda"". This is a factual statement, whatever one may think about the title of the article. It was reversed by Nontricky and I undid it. I believe it is an important statement to make about the title this person claims to be holding. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether accurate or not, it might easily be original research or even advocacy as defined by Wikipedia. Both are of course forbidden in articles. Andrewa (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article remarked the because he is a former head of state, the King can bestow titles. I replaced that remark with the observation that this is based on his own statute and not on present Romanian law. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radu Duda is suspected to be a former undercover Securitate officer under the communists

[edit]

Radu Duda-s father was close to Ion Iliescu, former Romanian president, who instigated to violence in 1990 and order the murder of Ceausescu. It becomes more and more clear, after Iliescu said that "there is a plan for the socialism revival in the world" that for Romania this plan is to block anything that could link Romania to the Real roots, violently taken out in 1947 when the communists took over completely.

Radu Duda is not accepted by the Romanian people, while King Mihai I is a legend figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irinoiucristi (talk • contribs) 08:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV removed

[edit]

I've removed the NPOV template, please use {{POV-section}} or better yet {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - RoyBoy 23:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous requested move

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

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Radu of Romania → Radu al României Duda – This issue was discussed in 2009, but I think it is worth giving it another look, for several reasons. It is not an isolated case, but raises some wider issues about titles, see Wikipedia Talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Alleged princes. If we award this person the title of prince, it could be difficult to deny it to e.g. Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern. We do not use the title of prince or princess for members of e.g. the German and Austrian royal houses after these countries became republics. The 2 other Latin-alphabet Wikipedias where he has a biography, the Romanian and the French, both call him by the proposed new title, so this is what his own people call him. PatGallacher (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, on general principles. My only reservation is that in making this change we should be clear that it is not for Wikipedia to take a view on whether the title of "Prince" is valid or not in any particular context. Clearly there are different views on that. In short, to the Romanian Royal family and many of its loyalists the title is real, while to the world of Romanian officialdom it is not... but probably no royal or aristocratic Romanian titles are officially recognized in Romania anyway. The rest of the world is not terribly interested in the question. I believe "al României" means "of Romania", and it seems Radu formally changed his name to add those words, so I imagine it's what his passport says now. I see no problem with the proposed new page name. My main caveat is that we should agree we are not adjudicating on the validity of the title Michael of Romania gave him. Moonraker (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I oppose this move because it will mean nothing to English readers and it is incorrect in Romanian. "Radu al României Duda" is like saying "Charles of Wales Windsor". Does it sound good to you? I don't understand how they even came up with this name. Correct forms in Romanian could be "Radu Duda al României" or "Radu Duda de România". But since I note here a dispute whether he is or not a "Prince" (I don't have enough interest and knowledge on the subject to have an opinion), and if you insist in moving it, I would simply move it to "Radu Duda". That's ok in any language.--Codrin.B (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. BBC calls him Prince Radu or Radu Duda. The Telegraph calls him "Prince Radu". The "al României"/"of Romania" is from the "prince of Romania" title he was "granted" by his father in law in 2007, so that's still royal style. If you want to give him a commoner name, that's "Radu Duda", like Codrin.B wrote. Kauffner (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do I detect a consensus in favour of Radu Duda? The Telegraph may be biased in favour of using these titles e.g. their obituary of Carol Lambrino called him HRH Prince Carol of Romania, which not everyone would accept. PatGallacher (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google Books has many times more hits for him as "Radu Duda" than as "Prince Radu of Romania". If "Radu al României Duda" is like saying "Charles of Wales Windsor", then it's odd that Radu adopted that as his name. If it sounds too awkward to be used as a page name then I suppose it will still be there sounding odd somewhere in the lead? NB, quite a number of the Google Books hits for "Radu Duda", in English, French, and Romanian, are to do with the prince's career as an actor, which in the article seems to be covered by the words "artistic activity"... nothing wrong with being an actor, I recall that there was a daughter of Alexander II of Russia who became a professional singer, but I do wish those promoting this adopted member of the Romanian royal family could avoid euphemisms: it's the evasion of the truth which people laugh at, far more than the truth itself. Moonraker (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can certainly assure you that saying "Radu al României Duda" is like saying "Charles of Wales Windsor" and it is terribly odd and silly in any language. Even "dumb" Google Translate "fixed it" :-). Prince or not, I don't know. Seems pretty controversial and coming with such a name doesn't help.--Codrin.B (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the above, and especially WP:COMMONNAME in English RS. --Dweller (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Prince Radu of Romania → Radu Duda – I know that a previous move request for this person was discussed recently, but in the course of this discussion it seemed as if "Radu Duda" was the title most people supported. See some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). PatGallacher (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The Romanian press uses the title in a way that suggests a degree of official and public recognition. Agerpress, the national press agency, calls him "Prince Radu," "Prince Radu Duda", or "Prince Radu of Romania". The English-language daily Nine O'Clock calls him either "Prince Radu of Romania" or "Prince Radu", as does his own Website. In the Romanian-language press, he is given as either "Principele Radu Duda" or as "Principele Radu". The current title suggests that he is a prince of the blood, and the "of Romania" is a bit of misdirection. Marrying a princess doesn't usually make you a prince. If "prince" is treated as an honorific rather than as a title of nobility, it drops off. So the article title should be either Prince Radu or Radu Duda. Kauffner (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yawn. The new Statute of the Romanian Royal Family,[9] signed by former King Michael I of Romania on 30 December 2007, made public Radu's title of "Prince of Romania" with the style of "Royal Highness," which King Michael had bestowed upon him earlier on 5 January 2005. [1] I can't believe we are dedicating space to discussing the meaningless titles bestowed by former Kings, but it's not the first time, is it? Not sure what the answer is, but at the risk of instruction creep maybe we need a new guideline. Andrewa (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Prince Radu of Romania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Prince Radu of Romania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Prince Radu of Romania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prince Radu of Romania. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 15:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Prince Radu of Romania. 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) 21:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Prince Radu of Romania. 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) 08:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Prince Radu of Romania. 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) 19:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Radu_of_Romania&oldid=1201309138"