Talk:Alexander of Greece

Opening heading

Couldn't we move this to Alexander I of Greece? That's a natural disambiguator, unlike the annoying parentheses. john k 00:19, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Concur and done. Stan 05:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be just Alexander of Greece. To my knowledge, there has not been an Alexander II.Prsgoddess187 18:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ahm, it is true that per NC he could be without the ordinal, BUT in this case it means some other ambiguity, and therefore the ordinal is helpful. I oppose moving this for now. Arrigo 09:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

What is the ambiguity? Just curious, not trying to start a war. I am not opposed to keeping the page here, just wondering which title is correct.Prsgoddess187 00:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Kindly check thew page Alexander of Greece (to which you actually referred above), there you see already some ambiguity. Arrigo 16:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, maybe at some time in the future, there will be a different way to title this page.Prsgoddess187 19:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), the ordinal for single monarchs of that name should only be used when the ordinal was in official use. For the page to be at "Alexander I of Greece" we would need a source showing that that was the official style used by Alexander. If the disambiguator "(king)" is thought insufficiently distinctive then maybe "(modern king)" could be used? DrKiernan (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Issues with dates

Birth
"He was born on 1 August 1893 (21 July O.S.) at Tatoi near Athens ..."

• Well, that's a gap of only 11 days. The actual gap between the Julian and Gregorian calendars in 1893 was 12 days. So, either his Julian date was 20 July, or his Gregorian date was 2 August - but not both. I have a private note that the relevant dates are: Julian 20 July, Gregorian 1 August - but no citation. Can anyone clarify this?

Now fixed, given no objections. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Death
When he died in 1920, Greece was still using the Julian calendar. It didn't switch to the Gregorian till 23 March 1924. We need to clarify whether "25 October 1920" was a Julian date or a Gregorian date. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Alexander of Greece (king) → Alexander of Greece — This follows from the move of the rhetorician to Alexander Numenius, in retrospect they should really have been dealt with together. If moved this article should have a hatnote to Alexander of Greece (disambiguation). PatGallacher (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose He's too easily confused with Alexander the Great. Alexander of Greece should be the disambiguation page listing all three pages so that readers are directed to the article they want, which I suspect in most cases will be the ancient king. I'd prefer Alexander, King of the Hellenes, because that is the name used in the lead, which has been stable for some time and reflects his official title and style. DrKiernan (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• 'Oppose move for the same reason as DrKiernan. And since the prescribed pattern for royalty titles in WP is "[name] [ordinal] of [state]", the current title is OK. Constantine ✍ 08:15, 21 January 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

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.

The result of the proposal was move per request per unanimous support.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Alexander of Greece (king) → Alexander of Greece — Following discussion at Talk:Alexander of Greece, there is some feeling for re-opening this discussion. No other person is widely known as Alexander of Greece. PatGallacher (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Don't see how people would confuse Alexander of Greece with Alexander the Great, particularly given Alexander the Great was Macedonian. The chance of confusion seems just as unlikely as confusing Alexander of Greece with Alexander the Good, Alexander the Blessed, or Alexander of Aphrodisias.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Who ever calls Alexander the Great "Alexander of Greece"? My preference, though, would be to move the articles on all the Glucksberg kings of greece to the Alexander, King of the Hellenes format. The current title, btw, is totally absurd - Alexander the Great is the only other person mentioned at Alexander of Greece, and he was a king too. john k (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support per the above.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Constantine ✍ 15:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support, though I do think it will be prudent to keep a hatnote at the page Alexander of Greece (which will be for the modern king). Wareh (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support, though I would note that Alexander the Great was Greek, albeit living in a time before the establishment of the Kingdom of Greece. Hatnote should definately be included. City of Destruction 18:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support, as Alexander the Great, was King of Macadonia. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Should be noted that ancient Macedonia was considered to be a Greek kingdom, so Alexander the Great could very reasonably be described as a king of Greece. The Slavic Republic of Macedonia covers only the northern part of the Macedonia region, and Alexander the Great, despite the renaming of Skopje Airport, is culturally and linguistically much closer to modern-day Greece than its northern neighbour. However, I do think a hatnote is a perfectly sufficient way of disambiguating the two monarchs. City of Destruction 22:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Macedon was considered half-Greek, half-barbarian; its language was obviously closely related to Greek, but its political organization and culture were not particularly close to that of Greece proper. The Macedonians were not barbarians, because their speech was intelligible, but they were not exactly Greeks, either. Beyond that, regardless of whether one could reasonably describe Alexander as a king of Greece, I have never seen Alexander (or any other king of Macedon) so described in any reliable source, nor have I ever seen him referred to as "Alexander of Greece." john k (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

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.

File:Greek 30 Drachma coin 1863.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Greek 30 Drachma coin 1863.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Greek 30 Drachma coin 1863.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction (now explained)

Lots of people around as the King takes an oath

The "Coronation" section says his accession was virtually secret, only three people attended, and that there were no festivities. That is totally at odds with this image of the event. DrKiernan (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

For me, it doesn't refer to the same event. There was the "accession" (which was not secret but private) and then the oath in the Parliament. 85.69.7.51 (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

After some investigation, I confirm it does not refer to the same event. When Alexander became king (june 10th, 1917), Zaimis was Prime Minister and Venizelos was not in Athens but in Thessaloniki. Now, in the photograph, Venizelos is present and probably is the new Prime Minister (that is to say after june, 26th 1917). It is very probable that there was two ceremonies: the secret and private one with Constantine and Zaimis and the public and official one with Venizelos Konstantinos (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Commons states that this ceremony occured on August 4, 1917. So there is no contradiction Konstantinos (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I can explain why there was a second (totally public) oath with Venizelos. It is because of article 49 of the Greek Constitution which stated: "The king is major at the age of eighteen years old. Before getting on the throne, he lends, in the presence of ministers, Saint-Synod, deputies present in the capital and other higher authorities, the oath contained in article 43. The king summons the House of Deputies in the Two months at the latest, and lends the desired oath in its breast." (sorry for the translation, you can find the French version here). Konstantinos (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Relation to current British royal family

I don't know if it's worth mentioning (or where it would go), as they were both born after Alexander's death, but it could be noted that Alexander was both the second cousin once removed of Queen Elizabeth II and the first cousin of her husband Prince Philip. It might increase the subject's relevance to a current reader. MisfitToys (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

He is also uncle of the King of Romania, granduncle of the King of Spain, grandfather of the Crown Prince of Yugoslavia, etc. That sounds far more relevant than a second cousin once removed or a first cousin, doesn't it? Surtsicna (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

However, those figures aren't as internationally well-known (and the Romanian and Yugoslav monarchies were abolished decades ago); Elizabeth is easily one of the two or three best-known women in the world. I'll add that I wouldn't have raised the subject of mentioning Elizabeth were it not for the fact that both she and her husband are related to Alexander. (And a first cousin would be just as relevant as a granduncle, and perhaps a grandfather.) MisfitToys (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that being a sole grandchild is as relevant as being one of more than 30 first cousins. My point is that Alexander's relationship to Elizabeth and Philip is trivial and to mention it, without mentioning former and present heads of state to whom he is more closely related, would be pure anglocentrism. I doubt any biographer of his mentions him as a second cousin once removed of Elizabeth or as a first cousin of Philip. Surtsicna (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Greek expansion

DrKay cleared my revisions. Stating that " too bias: please either use both Greek and Turkish sources or sources not from either country; language far too prejudiced" I would appreciate if he/she clarifies the below written source is "both Greek and Turkish" or "from either country". 'Kargakos, Sarantos I. (2000). Αλεξανδρούπολη: Μια νέα πόλη με παλιά ιστορία [Alexandroupoli: A New City with an Old History] (in Greek). Athens: Privately printed. OCLC 47927958' I would be delighted to know what made DrKay think that my language is "far too prejediced". If the word "invade" disturbes him/her the below written sentence taken from the same paragraph also includes it. "Despite their territorial gains following the Paris Peace Conference, the Greeks still hoped to achieve the Megali Idea and annex Constantinople and larger areas of Ottoman Asia Minor; they invaded Anatolia beyond Smyrna and sought to take Ankara, with the aim of destroying the Turkish resistance led by Mustafa Kemal (later known as Atatürk).[31]

I regret to say that if DrKay does not give proper explanation he/she damages principles unbiasedness. If a Greek source/referance "Kargakos, Sarantos" is well accepted in this article why not a Turkish source/referance is not accepted. Finally I added and information, which do not defend or accuse any nation. It just gives a detail which has not been placed in Greek or British sources but only in Turkish media in that period.

Cem Altınel (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The photo of "Alexander entering Adrianople, 1920" is also a proof of my contribution which already exists in the article.

Cem Altınel (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

It's Greek. What part of the content it supports do you dispute?

Driault and Lhéritier are neither Greek nor Turkish.

If something is not widely published, it probably doesn't belong in the article, per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. DrKay (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Here´s the ommited bit of the article

Soon after completion of East Thrace’s invasion by the Greeks (25 July 1920), Alexander organised a visit to conquered places with an accompanying battalion. First he came to Edirne (Adrinople) then via Kırklareli (Kırkkilise) to Midye. Finally he travelled from Gelibolu to İzmir (Symrna) and returned to Athens with Greek cruiser Georgios Averof.

It contains good info, my only concern is that this might be original research.--Greece666 (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

My concerns also include the poor grammar, misspellings and weird idiom. DrKay (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

References