They have so many dynasties, and none of them are listed? Insert non-formatted text here
North Korea
I have deleted the following since the same is repeated in "Political families".
"The Heads of State of modern North Korea also works on de facto dynastic succession. The late Kim Il-Sung was succeeded by his eldest son Kim Jong-Il, and Kim Jong-Il will most certainly be succeeded by one of his own sons".
Other reasons for deletion:
1) The entry sounded like anti-North Korean propaganda. And while many of us may not like North Korea, propaganda is still propaganda, even if it sounds pretty to our ears. 2) The entry contained an unprovable supposition. 3) There is no mention about things like this in other countries' sections (like Syria). Ri hwa won 20:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
"democracies"?
Why are the Kims and the Assads under a section-header "Dynasties in democracies"? AnonMoos 14:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Sports dynasty section
I really don't like this. It's inherently POV. It's something sportwriters argue about all the time. How can it work on Wikipedia? – flamurai (t) 09:51, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
I totally agree. Plus except for some sports fanatics nobody will be interested in that kind of interpretation. If people want to keep it, let's move it to Dynasty_(sports) and let them fight it out there. Actually, this page needs a lot of work in general -- have a look at for example the German version of this page for an example of what a page on dynasties should look like (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynastie). --CPK 03:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
European dynasties --> ass backwards?
The material on European dynasties seems to me to be organized in a not very useful way. Given that so many European dynasties ruled over many different countries, and given that the list of dynasties in each country separately is already to be found at the individual List of monarchs pages, I wonder if it might not be better to list all the different European dynasties together, and note the various specific places they ruled. Sub-branches could be indicated through use of indenting. john k 19:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
heres an article on the eyres thats really recent, LOTS of info, lol. got to the part about lroy heller w/the teacher and RAOTFLMAO. it shuldnt be funny but it is
The link for the Byzantine Angelus / Angelos dynasty went to "Angelus" which takes you to an article on the Catholic prayer of that name. I checked the disambiguation and there is a reference to the Angelus dynasty but it's linked to "Angeloi" which redirects right back to the prayer article. I changed the link in this article to "Angelus (dynasty)", which makes it a orphan link for now. As far as I can tell there's no existing article on the Angelus dynasty. I put the name in the Latin form instead of the Greek in order to keep consistent with the other Byzantine dynasty links in this article. I'll make the same edit at the "Angelus" disambiguation page. --Kenji Yamada 09:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Time for separate article?
Isn't it time for the ever-increasing families enumerated in this article to be forked off into List of dynasties or some such, that matches & can be linked to the various Rulers and Succession lists? Lethiere 02:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Scotland
Why does Scotland's House only go to 1707 but England's goes to the present day? They both have had the same House since 1603. The royal house for England and Scotland should stop at 1707 and then a new country Great Britain 1707-1801 should be listed and then 1801-Present it should be U.K. royal Houses. This must be corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.206.157.242 (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
Party dynasties
Do we have an article that covers party dynasties in electoral politics. I'm thinking here of Japan's Liberal Democratcs, Sweden's Social Democrats, and regional dynasties like the Democracts in the American south from the ACW to the 1960s. Would it fit in this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevlar67 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
Categories
Is there any particular reason why this article is only in two categories? Olessi 18:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The article states that, on Elizabeth's death, the new ruling house will be Mountbatten-Windsor. However, that article states Mountbatten-Windsor is only a surname to be used by descendants of Elizabeth and Philip who are not in line for the throne, and specifically states that the House will continue to be Windsor. Which of these statements is true? There doesn't seem to be any evidence given for changing the name of the House, so it appears this article is incorrect. K.d.stauffer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge proposal
The article Royal House consists of information and lists substantially similar to or compatible with those in this article, Dynasty. Since this article appears to be more extensive, I recommend that Royal House be merged into it. FactStraight (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
But dynasties and royal houses are not the same. Whilst every royal house is a dynasty not every dynasty is a royal house. --Cameron* 10:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
A fact which can easily be pointed out in the merged article, as it is in the current articles. In ordinary discourse, "royal" is now used to refer to anyone or anything connected to hereditary monarchy -- most people consider the Grand Dukes of Luxembourg and their family to be "royalty", notwithstanding lack of entitlement to the title of "king/queen".FactStraight (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
... Which is to say, there will be, at least in effectconceptually, a section Dynasty#Royal houses? In any case, excuse me if i am flaunting my ignorance (and flouting the truth) but my impression was that a dynasty ended when a different royal house took the throne, while royal houses persisted, and flitted from throne to throne, each time adding a new dynasty to their family history. Perhaps i'm a clueless republican.
--Jerzy•t 18:43 & 18:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no difference in the meaning of "royal house" and "dynasty" in the example you cite: you could switch the two terms and the sentences would be as accurate/inaccurate as before. The only difference between the two terms is that "royal house" is used (in contrast to, e.g. "imperial house" or "grand ducal house") to refer, strictly, to a family of rulers whose head bears the official title of king/queen. A "dynasty" refers, more broadly, to any family which reigns by hereditary right, regardless of whether its head is emperor, king, grand duke, duke, prince, count, or lord. In practice, nowadays it is common to refer to members of any hereditary ruling family as "royalty" or "royals": Google turns up 3,040 hits for "Monaco's royal family" and only eight for "Monaco's princely family", although technically the first term is incorrect and the second is correct. "Dynasty" avoids this problem. FactStraight (talk) 07:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Jerzy phrased his sentence incorrectly. "A dinasty ended when a different royal house took the throne" is incorrect, it should be "A dinasty ended ruling a certain royal house when a different dinasty took the throne of that royal house". Additionally, a royal house usually bears the name of the ruled territory and can span several dinasties, and a dinasty can rule one or more royal houses along time. That includes the case of one dinasty being a member of several royal houses simultaneously, either when members of the same dinasty getting to be kings of several different countries, or when several royal titles come to be in possesion of one person. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
