Talk:Principality

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

• Before I begin any major edits to this page, I wanted to post the original stub text here for future reference. If I should fail to reincorporate specific information from this stub, by all means please don't hesitate to add it back in. --Gerald Farinas 19:56, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A principality is a land ruled by a prince. It is distinguished from a kingdom, often by being of modest size, sometimes by lacking full sovereignty. The German term Fürstentum is usually rendered in English as principality. Liechtenstein, Andorra, and Monaco are European principalities and present-day states. By contrast, the principalities of Wales in the UK and Asturias in Spain, are not states today, although the independent mediaeval Welsh state was nonetheless referred to as the principality. In both cases, the heir to the country's throne is titular prince of the principality. Sometimes the notion of a land as a principality is due to historical reasons: Catalonia, for instances, even when it was a sovereign state extending from Barcelona to Athens, was known as a principality, although its ruler was titled king (of the Kingdom of Aragón extended as the Aragonese Empire). It was a curious case where the ruling power had a nominal inferior degree to that of the ruled territory. In the history of Russia the term "principality", and sometimes duchy, is used for render the Russian term knyazhestvo, a land ruled by a knyaz.

Where is verification of "A lunchtime conversational topic, which requires research and confirmation by a Lizbrarian." and definition of lizbrarian?

"Characteristic of nationalism is the preference for loyalty to the people instead of loyalty to monarchs." I am tempted to say this is somewhat incorrect. Lichtensteiners remain fiercely loyal to their Prince, this is best shown in the fact that they oted for constitutional amendments giving him more power. Though it is in a different context: "nationalism" in the UK is defined as loyalty to the monarch, the opposite of how it is described here. Faie enough the UK is a full Kingdom and not a Principality but the point is valid; that in these hereditary pincipalities, the nationalist-inclined people are more pro-monarch than anti-monarch.

I agree that the line "A lunchtime conversational topic, which requires research and confirmation by a Lizbrarian." seems not to be in the spirit of "Encyclopedic Content", or at the very least needs a citation, but I'm still new and am too chicken to just edit it myself. NipokNek 18:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of WP:BOLD I am removing this line. NipokNek 07:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gerald. I see that you have avoided all mention of what I consider and what the UK and USA governments consider to be a load of rubbish, namely the claims that a sunken Royal Navy barge on Rough Sands is or ever could be a "principality". There is so much working against this absurd idea. Roy Bates got the idea in a pub. He has no legal authority and most of the time there is but a lone caretaker sitting on the superstructure of the barge. The UK has never given up claims to its barge which is still marked by UK Ministry of Defence buoys. The UK claims the sand under and around the barge. The only question is whether Bates gained squatter's rights to the barge itself under English law. That seems to be the consensus. However, that would make his barge subject to eminent domain and other laws if the UK wanted to rid itself of this sunken vessel. What it is not and never has been is a principality. But since you are writing about this topic perhaps you would care to wade in since the "Principality of Sealand" page is also linked to this one for explanation of the word "principality"! MPLX/MH 21:51, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anyone has some information about the Portuguese Principalities? Can't remember ever seen them mentioned in my history books, at least in continental Portugal.

I have deleted the following text from this article, as it is highly biased, has little relevance to the topic of the article, and seems to have no real purpose other than promoting the personal opinion of MPLX, the person who wrote it. It should be noted that MPLX has peppered Wikipedia with half a dozen other articles that also seem to exist just to promote his strong personal opinion concerning Sealand, and they are all as equally unbalanced, and unsupported by documentation as this contribution is.--Centauri 03:50, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In recent years a number of individuals have engaged in the fantasy game of giving themselves titles by declaring ordinary property subject to the sovereignty of existing laws to be real property. Most often this game has been played out in mass media forums as entertainment. The Internet has also been used for this purpose and the word micronation has been invented to describe this practice. Sometimes these ideas are a cover for more sinister activities which are usually dealt with quietly under the existing laws of the countries to which these people are subject to. Sometimes they attract followers who are far-flung from the actual area of interest. One such micronation was invented by Roy Bates of Essex, England. He is a citizen of the United Kingdom who threw existing squatters off a former Royal Navy sea barge and declared that the UK government property was henceforth his own principality of Sealand. The British government have curtailed any and all violations of their laws so that this micronation only exists on the Internet or within the actual confines of the former Royal Navy barge. Another micronation having less notoriety was claimed by Leonard George Casley of Australia. He called his entity the "Hutt River Province". None of these entities have any standing in law.

I admit I should have stated in my artical on unreconized principalities that sealand and hutt river were contriversal. I only intended to say they claim they are principalities and would like my contribution reinstated under the title "legal-loop-hole principalities" or "fantasy principalities". I would also like to mention a principality in Italy known as Seborga, which is technecly a free principality. thank you for your time.

It would go far to disentangle this article if it were rewritten to open with definitions of "principality" drawn from classic authorities, with some direct quotes, and then to build from there, giving instances and examples that illustrate general principles. Profuse additions of favourite principalities might be discouraged except as illustrative examples. Some exceptions to general rules would follow, towards the end. --Wetman 19:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current lead suggests (to me) that Wales is a sovereign state ruled by a Prince. While this was once true, Wales is no longer a sovereign state (being part of the United Kingdom), and the Prince of Wales is a title that is not held by the monarch. Could this lead be rephrased to represent this? Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted incorrect sentence from lead and added text in later paragraph to clarify position. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the following sentence: "Wales still remains the largest principality in the world." from section 2.1 Development) as it appears to give inconsistent information to the reliably sourced information contained in the previous section.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - it's only been there 21 months!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The same anon IP editor added the same information to Wales just prior to the addition here on 13 April 2007], and there were related changes, which could do with being checked to make sure no remaining problems persist.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its like sorting out spider webs tracking down all the articles you need tomonitor! --Snowded TALK 16:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may be overlooking something, but can somebody explain to me why Åland is mentioned in the See also-chapter? I cannot find any reference in the article, nor in Åland and its related pages that this is (or has been) a principality. 12:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brynnar (talk • contribs)

I've done some research on Åland, but I didn't find any reliable source anywehere that these islands have been a principality. I removed it from the list. User:Brynnar/sig 15:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I also tried, but got bound up with other matters, and so didn't complete it. So, I think you did the right thing.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

The Principality of Hutt River has recently celebrated its 45th anniversary and has been established according to international law including the Montevideo Protocols (1933). The principality of Hutt River under sovereign Prince Leonard has a territory of 75klms, o border, population. a government and the ability to interact with other governments. Principality is an ancient and ongoing form of government - as Plato observed in 'The Republic', a benevolent monarchy is the best form of government.

TKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.233 (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are other articles on wikipedia on Princeps and Principate noting their significance in the development of the concept of a principality. Edits mentioning this here have been undone, with in my opinion, little valid reason leaving a lack of cohesion on the platform. The keystone of any contradiction/ confusion arising from the concept of a Prince being the ultimate sovereign even in a system that includes lesser 'Kings' stems from the existing statement that a Prince is of lesser rank to a King? If the Prince is the monarch of a sovereign state he is of the ultimate rank. Similarly what is a 'small monarchy'? A small Royal Family? A small government? What relevance is that? Finally the concept that a Principality may be ruled over by someone with the title of Count, Magrave or Lord directly contradicts the (accurate) opening definition.

The term principality is also sometimes used generically for any small monarchy, especially for small sovereign states ruled by a monarch of a lesser rank than a king, such as a Fürst (usually translated in English as "prince"), as in Liechtenstein, or a Grand Duke. No sovereign duchy currently exists, but Luxembourg is a surviving example of a sovereign grand duchy. Historically there have been sovereign principalities with many styles of ruler, such as Countship, Margraviate and even Lordship, especially within the Holy Roman Empire.

Similarly the following line: "While the preceding definition would seem to fit a princely state perfectly, the European historical tradition is to reserve that word for native monarchies in colonial countries, and to apply "principality" to the Western monarchies" Is very poorly drafted, princely state is not a 'word' and should be capitalised as a proper noun, also describing the commentary of the preceding paragraphs as a 'definition' is disingenuous. If any individual member perceives themself as the owner of this page then by all means, sort it out yourself. But I would suggest that these paragraphs need removing/ rewriting and the Princeps and Princepate be included somewhere within this article as critical to the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gar P Young (talk • contribs) 15:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of that reads like an essay. If you want to propose a change then draft something - with references and without synthesis - and propose it here -----Snowded ^TALK 17:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then I propose deleting both of the aforementioned paragraphs completely as they are poorly written, contradictory, incoherent and without a single reference and apparently of little to no relevance to the article's subject matter.

Also I suggest that discussing etymology or indeed the field of social history without using some degree of interpretative reasoning is obviously impossible. If it's otherwise then the majority of this article needs to go? : — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gar P Young (talk • contribs) 19:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the links in gthe welcome note on your talk page and them comeback here with proposals that conform with policy And remember to sign your posts-----Snowded ^TALK 20:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you may choose to revert edits made in good faith on the basis of syntax(in opposition to Wikipedia's guidelines which states that you should have attempted to reword it) But now you reference BRD? Explain further what hoops you would like me to jump through in order to remove 2 cumbersome paragraphs from this page? Be bold and just do it? So that you may revert it and that I may discuss 'these paragraphs are nonsense can we remove them?' Because that seems to pretty much be where we already are. What is the aim of your activities on this site? Is it not to improve articles? You have also reverted my edits on another page on a matter that has been discussed by multiple members on the talk page for which you haven't contributed? I'm still happy to work with you here to make this right. Perhaps someone as experienced as yourself should be a little more constructive and willing to help rather than hinder newcomers (that's also in the guidance by the way) . If... Veracity is truly what we're both here for? Gar P Young (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a welcome notice on your page which gives you lots of guidence on how to edit wikipedia and I have spelt it out in more detail on the Flint question. In the main it seems to me that you are writing essays here rather than reflecting sources. If you views were published in a reliable source, then we could reflect them. It is not 'hindering' you to ask you to conform with Wikipedia policy -----Snowded ^TALK 06:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Grand_Duchy_of_Moscow#Requested_move_18_January_2021. Has any scholar ever defined the difference? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably going to sound goofy, but it's a genuine question. I hope I can word it decently. I've always wondered why a monarch who has no one ranking above him stops at "prince" or "grand duke" without continuing right on to "king." If it's a matter of the size of the realm, history includes many tiny kingdoms, most of which have more recently been incorporated into larger states. Heck... I've been told that some of the kingdoms mentioned in the Old Testament were comparable to US counties. Anyhow... my question is Why, a thousand years ago, did the Grand Duke of Fenwick NOT say "I'm the top! I'm King of Fenwick!"? What kept the egos in check? PurpleChez (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read, it depends on wheather it is recognised by neighbouring nations. Like, I guess, a King isn't going to accept the Prince of some small princedom declaring theirself equal to him. Read this if you want a clearer answer:https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/52754/why-did-the-person-in-charge-of-a-principality-not-just-declare-themself-king Topeka-GuyWiki (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]