Talk:Leka, Crown Prince of Albania
 | Biography: Royalty and Nobility Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Renamed this page per Wiki stylebook re naming of former and deposed monarchs/royalty. Mowens35 13:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Added quite some content, and also removed several items that seemed misplaced, ie.:
- "Leka's father King Zog I, overthrew Fan Noli - anhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leka%2C_Crown_Prince_of_Albania Albanian priest, poet, and intellectual, but an inept political leader. Fan Noli was exiled to the U.S., dying in Boston." &
- "It should be noted Albania does not have a long tradition of monarchies as Great Britain and Monaco (among others) have."
Rdavout 12:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Please do not deny His Majesty King Leka his appropriate Royal titles, these are recognised and standard practice amongst exiled monarchs is that they do retain their prefixes. No matter how republican you may be this doesn't take away from the fact that Leka Zogu is HM King Leka I of the Albanians!(129.234.4.10 22:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC))
He never reigned as sovereign so he has no monarchical titles. Period. FearÉIREANN
\(caint) 22:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Really do you know anything about precedence within exiled Royal circles? No. Well I do. If head of a royal house one is entitled to be called a King. He is ruling a Royal Court in exile. Further to this he is King of the Albanians, all of them, not just Albania. At the very least could you compromise to calling him the titular King, or at least His Royal Highness Crown Prince Leka? Please respect what I have said. (129.234.4.10 11:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC))
- Thanks for that input. Different titles for an individual are a form of POV, and we should reflect all POV. We just need to have a reliable source for each. -Will Beback 11:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
A reliable source is the Almanach de Gotha, I own numerous editions, he and his family are in it. It is regarded as the difinitive source of world Royal families and is used to oust any false royal claimants. King Leka is also recognised by Burkes' Royal Families of the World. What's more he is recognised by thousands throughout the world. There is no doubt. (129.234.4.1 18:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC))
- It appears that the editor of Burkes' Royal Families of the World was actually a friend of Leka's.[1] -Will Beback 20:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with it. You cannot accuse a leading world authority of bias, it's ridiculous. He may well have been a friend of Prince Charles also! (129.234.4.76 07:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC))
Really he IS a King, and recgnised, by anyone who knows the protocol of Royal Houses, as such! At the very least he should be referred to as the "titular King of the Albanians", he has not been a Crown Prince since the death of his father. To deny someone the title of King because they no longer have a country is to deny an aristocrat their title because they on longer live in the family seat! (Couter-revolutionary 11:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC))
The title of king or queen (regnant) is exclusively linked to a throne. A throne is a constitutional position. If a throne is abolished, then someone cannot hold it and so they cannot be called king. Where a throne is abolished, the existing monarch continues to be referred to as king or queen as a courtesy title, not a constitutional office, for their lifetime. The title then dies with them and cannot be inherited by anyone else.
In Albania, the monarchy was legally abolished during the lifetime of Zog, Zog remained King Zog of Albania as a courtesy title, not a constitutional office. As the monarchy had been abolished by Zog's death, Leka could not possibly have been king and is not entitled to be called king as a courtesy title. Just as his father's last constitutional title turned courtesy title was king, Leka's was crown prince. He did not, and could not, become king unless the monarchy is recreated. It is elementary constitutional law. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Trust me, I know about these things. This has very little to do with constitutional law. As head of a Royal House, which that of Zogu-Mati clearly is, he is entitled to the title of King, even if this is titular King of Albania, or King-in-waiting perhaps. Please take note that King Leka has his own Albanian Royal Court-in-exile, and travels under a passport issued by it. Fact. Further to this he is King of the Albanians, not Albania, this throne cannot be legally abolished without wiping out the Albanian people. Royalty transcends geography and political entities, as you say, it's basic constitutional law. (Couter-revolutionary 21:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC))
Clearly you neither know about the rules on Wikipedia nor the rules followed generally. Any deviations from them get reverted automatically by other Wikipedians. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I most certainly do know about the rules followed generally and I am arguing that Leka is still a King, and believe this is an undeniable right. The Wikipedia guidelined you have sent me state that monarchs should be known by their highest title, King..., other articles on reigning monarchs do not do this, I will see to it that they do. On the subject of King Leka, you obviously consent to him being a Crown Prince, therefore the article should begin Crown Prince Leka I, NOT Leka Zogu. It shall then follow Wikipedia guidelines I believe. I also believe it should then make reference to him as "titular King of the Albanians", not a pretender. (Couter-revolutionary 07:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC))
Gideline number 8 states: "No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them. No cognomens (nicknames) in article titles – they go in the first line of the article." It should not, therefore, read Leka Zogu, rather just Leka. (Couter-revolutionary 12:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC))
Yes it should be just Leka. The format used on WP would be Leka, Crown Prince of Albania and has been changed to say that. As he never inherited a throne he cannot be called king. The highest title he had constitutionally was crown prince. As he was not a king but is a claimant to a throne is always referred to as a pretender. That is standard. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Firstly he does rule over the Albanian people, the Albanians, of which he is King. Secondly his royal court is diplomatically recognised and, finally, may I refer you to this article [[2]], which I think may prove he should be referred to as the Titular King of Albania, or the extant claimant King when the throne is restored. This article no longer needs locked, I will not attempt to edit it without reaching an agreement. (Couter-revolutionary 20:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC))
- We'd need to some proof of his rule. Does he sign laws? Does he open parliament? Is his image on the postage stamps and currency? Is the country considered a monarchy? What other countries recognize him as the king?
- The CIA World Factbook, considered a standard reference, calls Albania a "republic", which means it has no monarch. It says that the head of state is the president.[3] -Will Beback 20:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Technically you are correct, Albania, as a political entity is a republic. When the monarchy was created it was the as King of the Albanians, not of Albania, this was an action of dynastic foresight on King Zog's part which meant that, technically it couldn't really be abolished, even if they no longer politically ruled Albania. Leka was recognised in Egypt, South Africa, Rhodesia, Spain and more diplomatically. The Queen of England recognises the Orders of Merit which he has granted. Albania itself let him into the country on his Royal Passport as have the other countries mentioned above. His Royal Court-in-exile has been describes as a "phantom state". Here are some extracts from the Albanian constitution: Art. 50. The King of the Albanians is His Majesty Zog I, of the illustrious Albanian family of Zogu.
Art. 51. The Heir to the Throne shall be the King's eldest son. and the succession shall continue generation after generation in the direct male line.
Art. 56. The King, in the. presence of Parliament, shall take the following oath: "I, - , King of the Albanians, on ascending the Throne of the Albanian Kingdom and assuming the Royal powers, swear in the presence of God Almighty that I will maintain national unity, the independence of the State, and its territorial integrity, and I will maintain and conform to the statute and laws in force, having the good of the, people always in mind. So help me God!”
Art. 98. The King's title is «His Majesty»; that of the Heir to the Throne, «Prince of the Albanians,» «His Highness»; that of the Queen-Mother and of the Queen, «Her Majesty»; that of the brothers on the father's side and of the King's sons, «Prince»; of the sisters on the father's side and of the daughters of the King, «Princess.» These two latter titles do not pass by descent, and in case of need they may be cancelled by a Royal decree.
Other than the above, no titles of nobility may be conferred on or held by Albanians in Albania. (Couter-revolutionary 21:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
By the way if this page did use Royal styles his would be His Highness, not His Royal Highness. (Couter-revolutionary 21:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
The use of a title linked to people, not territory, is what is known as a popular monarchy. The King of the Belgians and the King of the Hellenes are just two examples. Monarchies don't however exist in perpetuity. They exist within a constitutional framework. A constitutional methodology can terminate a popular monarchy just as it can a contitutional monarchy or absolute monarchy. As Albania became a republic during Zog's lifetime Leka could not succeed to an abolished throne, so legally and constitutionally he cannot be a king. Otherwise, as he also reigned with a "popular monarchy", Constantine II is still King of Greece. No-one, not even Constantine, believes that. He is referred to as King Constantine II of Greece as a courtesy title, not a constitutional office. Leka holds the courtesy title of crown prince. Just as he cannot inherit a defunct throne and no longer existing title, neither can Leka's son inherit the title crown prince. The title "king" died with Zog. The title "crown prince" will die with Leka. That is international constitutional law and precedent.
The legal constitution of Albania, enacted in 1998, is quite explicit.
Albania is a parliamentary republic. (Article 1.1)
The President of the Republic is the Head of State and represents the unity of the people. (Article 86.1)
All other previous constitutions are invalidated by the enactment of new constitutions under international law.
Clearly Albania is a republic, not a kingdom. Therefore Leka could not be its king. He remains, as with all deposed crown princes, known by that title for his lifetime at which point that title dies with him, just as the title king died with King Zog. It is in law and politics an open and shut case. Wikipedia can't call him by a title he doesn't have. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- The old constitution required that the king swear an oath before parliament. I'd be surprised if that has been done by the subject. -Will Beback 23:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- No evidence of it. FearÉIREANN
\(caint) 00:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- No evidence of it. FearÉIREANN
As a constitutional lawyer and one with an intimate knowledge of the workings of a Royal Court-in-exile, I understood the oath before Parliament clause to be required before powers can be exercised. Leka does not try to exercise power over Albania. He is the head of a royal house and, therefore the titular King, I believe the article should make this clear.(Couter-revolutionary 06:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC))
Being head of a royal house does not mean one is called "titular king". Either one is a king or one isn't. The evidence shows unambiguously that he isn't. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
He is the titular King, this means that if the country was politically a monarchy then he would be it's rightful ruler, that's all. If you look at other relevant articles this has been noted. (Couter-revolutionary 20:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC))
- He's not in exile, is he? I thought he was living in Albania now. How does Leka assert his title? -Will Beback 20:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
He is not in exile, no. He lives in Albania, the authorities recognise him as having special status to a certain degree, however he still asserts he is the legitimate ruler [[4]]. He did this through his political parties, however he has withdrawn from public life of late. (Couter-revolutionary 06:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC))
- Does Leka maintain a court? Has he named officials of his court, does his wife have ladies-in-waiting, does he ever dress up and "hold court", does he bestow honors or engage in other royal activities? If so, it might be interesting to record a summary of those activities. However his recent activities appear more political than regal. -Will Beback 06:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
He does maintain a Court and does have positions of Court yes, including Ministers, body guards and a staffed Secretariat. Queen Susan has passed away so she does not have ladies in waiting. He does occasionally wear military uniform, yes. I believe that he has issued orders of merit although his Constitution prevents bestowing noble titles, and especially selling them. I hope this helps. I do not think it appropriate, however, to include such details in this context. (Couter-revolutionary 12:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC))
Numerous claimants to thrones set up their own courts. But they still aren't called "kings". The Comte de Chambord in mid to late 19th century set up his own court. So did various claimants to the Russian thrones. Pretenders to the British crown do it all the time. Emperor Norton I of the United States had a court of sorts (well two dogs and his own currency anyway. Even the police saluted him on the streets!). But they aren't presumed to be kings by anyone other than a small number of supporters. Yes it is interesting and newsworthy to mention that Leka has done that, but it still doesn't mean he is a king. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, as much as I want Leka to be a King and be known as one; in fact I will always call him King Leka personally, it would be rude not to, I think Wikipedia guidelines dictate his being called Crown Prince. I was just answering Will Bebeack's questions. For the purposes of this article his title is Crown Prince, but we ought to include his being known as King also. Oh and on Emperor Norton I personally think he did develop a certain amount of legitimacy! (Couter-revolutionary 14:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC))
- I understand. BTW have a glance at the Emperor Norton I article. It is a gem. It is one of the best articles on Wikipedia, a masterpiece of writing that manages to be funny, serious, respectful, tongue-in-cheek and factual at the same time, a very difficult task. There are few better articles on Wikipedia. On such a topic it could have been a mess. Somehow the writers produced what in my view is a masterpiece of writing. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Improvement drive
I have tried to add refs and make improvements to this article about this fascinating figure. Considering how active Leka has been in trying to return as King, more so than most other claimants to abolished thrones, I think this article is a bit threadbare and could do with further sourcing and possibly expansion. I have added fact tags in appropriate places to try and encourage this, not as an indication that I don't think the statements are true - the article needs clean-up but doesn't seem to suffer from NPOV issues in content or tone. --SandyDancer 11:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- A lot of the information, which you are referring to as unsourced, has been added to me. It was found in various books, other documents and through conversation. Thus it is not possible to link the facts to internet sources. I shall, however, attempt to compile a bibliography, if this would be appropriate.--Couter-revolutionary 12:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- You can't add unverified statements to biographies on Wikipedia, so yes, naming your sources and linking to them with footnotes would be appropriate. You will see I removed the addition you made to the intro re: "even the Albanian prime minister calls him King". I must be honest and say I thought this a rather strange addition, reliability of the source aside, Wikipedia is not somewhere to make claims that abolished monarchies still exist and that the royal status of ex-royals somehow cannot be abolished ... that seems to be why that sentence and source was added ... --SandyDancer 13:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am not saying the PM thinks he exits, he calls him that out of courtesey. Read the source, that is what it says. It is useful for people to know how he is trated in Albania, you have to look at the wider picture, Mr. Blair would not call him this, but his own PM apparently does.--Couter-revolutionary 13:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Regardless of that, what does it add? Don't you see how strangely what you wrote read? Some of your edits are making articles read as if they are arguments in favour of your views on the divine right of kings. That is unhelpful. --SandyDancer 13:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I merely think people would appreciate knowing how Leka I is treated within Albania. If a source says that the PM of Albania referred to him as King I think this is notable. The intro. says he is referred to as King by Monarchists. Apparently it's not just monarchists...As you seem to dislike this fact you have removed it. Please appreciate a useful source.--Couter-revolutionary 13:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- The source doesn't explicitly say that and the source is unreliable anyway. --SandyDancer 13:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Why is it unreliable? Because it says something, which you do not want to hear? I do hope you can give me a better reason.--Couter-revolutionary 13:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Because it appears to be self-published. I have already said that. Look at it. Get a third party involved if you think I am being unreasonable. I am not. --SandyDancer 13:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Why is it unreliable? Because it says something, which you do not want to hear? I do hope you can give me a better reason.--Couter-revolutionary 13:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- The source doesn't explicitly say that and the source is unreliable anyway. --SandyDancer 13:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I merely think people would appreciate knowing how Leka I is treated within Albania. If a source says that the PM of Albania referred to him as King I think this is notable. The intro. says he is referred to as King by Monarchists. Apparently it's not just monarchists...As you seem to dislike this fact you have removed it. Please appreciate a useful source.--Couter-revolutionary 13:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Regardless of that, what does it add? Don't you see how strangely what you wrote read? Some of your edits are making articles read as if they are arguments in favour of your views on the divine right of kings. That is unhelpful. --SandyDancer 13:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am not saying the PM thinks he exits, he calls him that out of courtesey. Read the source, that is what it says. It is useful for people to know how he is trated in Albania, you have to look at the wider picture, Mr. Blair would not call him this, but his own PM apparently does.--Couter-revolutionary 13:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- You can't add unverified statements to biographies on Wikipedia, so yes, naming your sources and linking to them with footnotes would be appropriate. You will see I removed the addition you made to the intro re: "even the Albanian prime minister calls him King". I must be honest and say I thought this a rather strange addition, reliability of the source aside, Wikipedia is not somewhere to make claims that abolished monarchies still exist and that the royal status of ex-royals somehow cannot be abolished ... that seems to be why that sentence and source was added ... --SandyDancer 13:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- A lot of the information, which you are referring to as unsourced, has been added to me. It was found in various books, other documents and through conversation. Thus it is not possible to link the facts to internet sources. I shall, however, attempt to compile a bibliography, if this would be appropriate.--Couter-revolutionary 12:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Deposed monarchs vs. pretenders
My understanding is that the common practice is to refer to deposed monarchs by the title they bore during the time when they were effectively monarchs--e.g. King Constantine (Greece); King Michael (Romania); King Simeon II (Bulgaria); etc., the only exceptions being abdicated monarchs to whom some other title has been granted, for example the Duke of Windsor. I further understand that one customarily refers to the heirs of deposed monarchs, insofar as those heirs remain claimants to monarchical status but have never in fact reigned, by some other title: e.g. the Comte de Paris; the Crown Prince of Ethiopia; Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia; Charles, Prince Napoleon; and so on. If this is the case, and it seems to be, then the supposed King Leka is simply being pretentious, and in allowing himself to be called King Leka he has purely and simply usurped a style to which he would not customarily be entitled. It would follow that it doesn't matter if his "followers" or even an official 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 until Albania changes its constitution to that of a monarchy and designates him as its king. I'm not saying this out of any antipathy toward the gentleman in question, I simply can't see how else to read the situation. Tom129.93.17.195 23:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)