Talk:Monarchy of Luxembourg

House of Bourbon-Parma

Regarding the latest edit (by 140.203.7.37), I do feel certain that the descendants of GD Charlotte should be considered members of the House of Bourbon-Parma, not the House of Nassau-Weilburg. This is the way it is most commonly done, and it is a consistent way of naming dynasties. Of course, if there is an official decision to name the house otherwise, that complicates the matter (like in the UK, where Elizabeth's descendants are officially considered members of the house Windsor, so that the name will continue to be the official dynasty name after her death). Is there such a decision in Luxembourg? Then, of course, there should be some Wiki-agreement on whether we should go on the official line, or rather on the more consistent, agnatic-family line. Comments? -- Jao 09:16, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why not state the use of both? 's-Gravenhage 13:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because House Names are usually (note: usually, not always)passed down only in the male line, not in the female.

Naming conventions

Why are some Grand Dukes listed in French (Jean and not John, Henri and not Henry) and others in English (William instead of Guillaume) ? What is the rule ? 68.91.98.249 17:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The only Wikipedia policy on this is "the name most common in English". As common usage is inconsistent, Wikipedia will be too. But there's a clear tendency towards not anglicizing names of living monarchs or people otherwise seen as contemporary, which probably explains your examples. I think all this anglicizing business is slowly changing, though, so chances are that Henri will never be known as Henry, Grand Duke of Luxembourg. But current Wikipedia policy is that this is not up to us to decide. -- Jao 12:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

"Royal Highness", not "Majesty"

http://www.gouvernement.lu/dossiers/famille_grand_ducale/chregneuk/infobase/cvhenri.html СЛУЖБА (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A certain "Arkansaw Brown"

Who is Arkansaw Brown and why he is listed as a member of the Ducal Family?

Please reply to this question...

RNAlonto (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Monarchy of Luxembourg

Can someone change the contents of this article to be about the Monarchy of Luxembourg instead of the title? There is already a list of Grand Dukes and every other European monarchy have a Monarchy of X article.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction

See talk:Line of succession to the throne of Luxembourg#Equal primogeniture. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Number 57 22:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Grand Duke of Luxembourg → Monarchy of Luxembourg – For similar reasons to the above concern back in 2011, female succession has been permitted in Luxembourg since 1907.--Neve–selbert 20:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support - without question. I recall raising this concern about this article & Prince of Monaco, years ago. But, it didn't get any traction. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, for two reasons:

1. "Grand Duke" is the title of an office-holder. If his title was "monarch", then the article should be "Monarch of Luxembourg". The proposed name "Monarchy" refers to the office rather than person, and is the equivalent of "Grand Duchy" rather than "Grand Duke".
2. No evidence is offered (or even hinted at) that "Monarch[y] of Luxembourg" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the holder of this office. On the contrary, this proposed renaming appears to be motivated solely to satisfy the nominator's views on gender-neutrality. However laudable those views, WP:AT does not permit renaming a topic to a rarely-used title just to satisfy the preferences of editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The proposal is Monarchy of Luxembourg, not Monarch of Luxembourg. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support For consistency with other articles about the function of the monarch in European countries. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per BrownHairedGirl's argument, above, including the observation that "Monarch of Luxembourg" refers generically to the office rather than specifically to the officeholder(s) who serve as Luxembourg's Head of State. Her rationale is sound: if English does not have a single, gender-neutral term for such an officeholder that is the business of the people of that nation; we should not grab the nearest synonym and substitute it as if it were identical in meaning when it is not. FactStraight (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

  @FactStraight: I would note that there is a similar precedent with Monarchy of Monaco and Monarchy of Liechtenstein.--Neve–selbert 17:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The proposal is Monarchy of Luxembourg, not Monarch of Luxembourg. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose It's more easy to have a Grand Duchess article. Eleutheure (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Requested move 22 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Close as repetitive, set full moratorium on move discussions of three months and a permanent minimum six month gap between same user renominations This proposal is identical to the one discussed last month and made by the same user. Constantly bringing the same proposal back is unhelpful. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Grand Duke of Luxembourg → Monarchy of Luxembourg – Per consistency with the other European monarchy articles: e.g. Monarchy of Liechtenstein, Monarchy of Monaco, et al. --Neve–selbert 03:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - per nominator's reasoning. GoodDay (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per BrownHairedGirl's argument on this issue last month, above, including the observation that "Monarch of Luxembourg" refers generically to the office rather than specifically to the officeholder(s) who serve as Luxembourg's Head of State. Her rationale is sound: if English does not have a single, gender-neutral term for such an officeholder that is the business of the people of that nation; we should not grab the nearest synonym and substitute it as if it were identical in meaning when it is not. Also, per Eleutheure's point, raised in last month's discussion. FactStraight (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Again though, the proposal is to change to Monarchy of Luxembourg, not Monarch of Luxembourg. Furthermore, the article is about the office. GoodDay (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support: per scope.--Zoupan 17:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Requested move 23 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 16:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Grand Duke of Luxembourg → Monarchy of Luxembourg – Given WP:SCOPE, this article is about the Luxembourgish monarchy just as much as Monarchy of the United Kingdom is about the Queen of the United Kingdom. Consistency is the key issue at stake here. Take Monarchy of Liechtenstein, for example, which is not entitled [Sovereign] Prince of Liechtenstein for this very reason. It should also be noted that this move request is not motivated by reason of gender-neutrality, this is irrelevant. Luxembourg is a constitutional monarchy, and hence any argument that Monarchy of Luxembourg should just follow the precedent of Presidency of the United States redirecting to President of the United States is a red herring; the United States is not a presidency but a constitutional republic. Queen of the United Kingdom, King of Thailand are redirects for a reason. We should aim to encourage this efficient consistency across all such articles. --Nevé–selbert 22:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support, as it would bring the article title in line with other monarchy article titles. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, unlike many other monarchies, the title of Grand Duke of Luxembourg pre-dates independence, and as such this page is not only about the monarchy of the state of luxembourg, but the title of nobility that predates the existence of the state.XavierGreen (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Because the Monarchy predates the Grand Duke but the articles starts at 1815. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamakkusa (talk • contribs) 02:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support, it only makes sense since we have a list of counts, dukes and grand dukes already. This should be Monarchy of...like other existing monarchy. If a brief mentioning of the County and Duchy is necessary than we can include it at the beginning in a background section or something like that but still have the article solely focused on the modern monarchy since 1815.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom and WP:CONSISTENCY. I don't find the oppose arguments convincing. The state of Luxembourg isn't really relevant here. The grand duke is clearly part of the monarchy, whichever era you're looking at.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• In response to both XavierGreen and Yamakkusa:
  • I'm sorry, but your argument is definitively redundant. Independent or not, "Luxembourg" in and of itself has always been a monarchical state since at least 1772, the earliest year mentioned at the article. Just take List of current constituent monarchs, all of these constituent monarchs preside over some sort of monarchy, however marginalised. The Grand Duke I should think is no different. There is absolutely zero mention of a "title of nobility" at the article. And, even if there were, we could easily have the article WP:SPLIT. Furthermore, what if we had to face a similar situation with what is looming for First Lady of the United States: an occupant of the opposite gender? I find it much more likely that that page would be moved to First Spouse of the United States than First Gentleman of the United States. That being said, gender-neutrality is more or less irrelevant; this article pertains to the "the monarchical head of state of Luxembourg." The article also reads that "Luxembourg has been a grand duchy since 15 March 1815, when it was elevated from a duchy, and was in personal union with the United Kingdom of the Netherlands until 1890 under the House of Orange-Nassau and is the world's only sovereign grand duchy. Since 1815, there have been nine monarchs of Luxembourg, including the incumbent, Henri." Judging from the lede alone, it seems quite clear to me that the premise of the article pertains to Luxembourg's monarchy, rather than the Luxembourgish nobility title that once preceded it.--Nevé–selbert 18:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I shall again point out that any grand duchy is synonymous with monarchy, i.e. a grand duchy is a monarchy. Whether or not Luxembourg was or was not independent is completely and utterly irrelevant. This article is about the monarchical system of government used in Luxembourg and nothing more, nothing less. Take Monarchy of Tonga, for example, a country under British supervision until 1970. Despite such colonial ties, this did not stop Tonga from being a monarchy per se, in any way whatsoever.--Nevé–selbert 19:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Descendants

Is it true Rutger Corné Heinsius and Linde Irmgard Heinsius, who nowadays are a rare species out from the Houses of Bourbon, Habsburg, Arragon, Heinaut and Hohenstaufen, beside all the others, also earn the title Duke (Duchess) of the Duchy Luxembourg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.100.67.82 (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Great coat of arms of Luxembourg.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)