Forum: Index > Votes > Royal Appearances
Note: This topic has been unedited for 412 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

This voting is now finished. The results of it are as follows: Option Four has passed, and royals will be allowed in DARP, though monarchs must have an exclusive reason for being here. The heir apparent of each country can attend any school of magic desired, and can be roleplayed here until their crowning.

So... I didn't expect to put this up for a vote, but I feel that it's necessary. Not just to control the amount of royal characters in DARP, but also as a precaution to avoid another uproar here in DARP. We've gone through this before and I don't feel interested in having it happen again. You will all be able to say your piece in the comments section once you hear what I have to say about the situation. You can all look over whatever discussion may happen and then come to your own decision. That said, I expect you all to act civilly. Should you not, do not even think it will go unpunished. We're civil humans, not savages.

On one hand, the concept of having royalty here is cool and interesting. On the other, we don't want OP characters, let alone unrealistic ones. I mean, what if someone wants to make an American King? It's not realistic, plus that's kind of... I don't know, very powerful. Therefore, I'm proposing some potential solutions (one that has 2 options within it). Whatever the majority decides will go into effect immediately after the vote finishes.

Option One

The first option is: we allow royals on DARP and don't limit the countries to which they can rule. For instance, there can be royals from USA, Mexico, South Korea, etc etc. There's no limit as to which countries are monarchies, but a user can only have three royals at a time. Kings, Queens & heirs to the throne cannot be in the UK, excluding them having a valid reason IC (aka special exceptions). They have their duties; they cannot be in another country when they have one to run. This means that only those royals in England are the ones with limited duties (i.e. Carn's Owen Connor, Prince of Norway with no actual duties to keep him from living here).

Option Two

Option 2.1

Option 2.1 is: we allow royals on DARP, but they can only come from real monarchies. For example, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Spain, etc. Kings, Queens & heirs to the throne cannot be in the UK, excluding them having a valid reason IC (aka special exceptions). They have their duties; they cannot be in another country when they have one to run. That said, you have only one royal character. The purpose of this is to give everyone a chance, since real, remaining monarchies are few.

Option 2.2

Option 2.2 is the same as option 2.1. However, instead of having just one royal per user, we expand it to two royals per users. There are no limits on the amount of royals in a family, right? But the limits in the other two options remain; no kings, queens & heirs to the throne in the UK without a valid reason.

Option 2.3

Option 2.3 is: we allow royals on DARP, but they can only come from current monarchies, or countries that once upon a time had monarchies. It would be easier to explain, because it's easier to explain their magical government never made the transition from monarchy to the new branch. For example, Italy, Greece, France, etc. It still remains that kings, queens & heirs to the throne cannot be in the UK, excluding them having a valid reason IC (aka special exceptions). They have their duties; they cannot be in another country when they have one to run. That said, like Option 2.2, you have two royal characters. The purpose is a lot like Option 2.1's, which is to give everyone a chance, since real, remaining monarchies are few.

Option Three

No royals are allowed in DARP. Any existing ones need to be either modified or marked inactive.

Option Four

A fourth option has been added at the behest of a part of our userbase. It fits what the Administration Team wants, aka no monarchs allowed on DARP without explicitly stated exceptions & each user is limited to just 2 royals, only one of which can be heir to the throne. That said, there's a twist to is; the monarchies are taking on a more modern twist on the education of their heir apparents, allowing them to attend any school of their choice. Given it does happen IRL, it wouldn't be far-fetched for direct heirs to attend Hogwarts or any other known school of magic. This gives room for heirs to be roleplayed up until their crowning. Moreover, this is explicitly reserved for monarchies that exist in modern time; it is not possible for countries who are now democracies, dictatorships, or any other form of government to be considered a monarchy in the magical side.


Option 1 (+0)

Option 2.1 (+0)

Option 2.2 (+0)

Option 2.3 (+2)

  1. Anchor"Smooth seas have never made for skilled sailors." Talk Anchor
  2. 왜 이렇게 밤이 길고 왜 이렇게 잠은 안 와? exo-cbx, sweet dreams

Option 3 (+0)

Option 4 (+6)

  1. Eyes Up, Guardian. LissPageFox
  2. ~ Thistle 17:19, January 20, 2018 (UTC)
  3. As long as it's only for monarchies that exist in modern times, I'm good.
    Newestsigmig "You need me to survive. Which is why you're not letting me go." Migs
  4. Open Your Eyes ~NCTU  JVsERMO

  1. Queen of Anarchy | 17:48, January 20, 2018 (UTC)
  2. - jayemalik'


Personally, I'm probably going to vote for 2.3. However, in the end, I'm okay with however this vote ends, except for option one. There's something about the idea of the King of America that puts a bad taste in my mouth, and I don't think I could get over it. I could easily get over the idea of a King of France, since that was a thing for a long time. I'm just stating my piece - while I'm voting for 2.3, really I am just opposed to option one in the end.
Anchor"Smooth seas have never made for skilled sailors." Talk Anchor18:23, January 19, 2018 (UTC)

Before I vote can we also add that royalty has to be established within the history when claimed, and if something is happens later that has them as royals, they have to resubmit their claim? This same principle is done with other restricted characters like exotic characters, so it only makes sense to apply it here.

I would almost call royals exotic as well, but the truth is wizard society tends to be very classist so I do see there being a decent amount of wizards coming from royalty.

I'm living feeling like a classic  Papillon Papillon

Oh also on royals making sense, they should make sense as to how they are royals. Correct me if I'm wrong but Owen is adopted right? Haven't done the research, so correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't he have royal status but not prince status based on his lack of marriage or bloodline? Princes are in line for the throne iirc but he wouldn't be

Also I think it's a bit cherry picking to say some direct heirs etc can but everyone else can't. I'd say either everyone can with good reason or no one can

I'm living feeling like a classic  Papillon Papillon

Owen is adopted yes, but I guess he was given the title Prince by the then current King and Queen? I think something along those lines happened anyways. As for the direct heirs thing, we just meant that someone like the Crown Prince or Crown Princess wouldn't be allowed. They'd have duties back home, whereas someone much further down the line of succession, like Owen would be allowed. So it's only the the heir that isn't allowed. Pretenders to the throne as I think they're called are.
Anchor"Smooth seas have never made for skilled sailors." Talk Anchor

I'm abstaining from the vote, because I unfortunately do not support any of the options, even the third which is against the whole thing. I have my reasons for this;

Option One is an obvious no, since we'd get royals from half a dozen nations that have not had them and thus throw everything out the window.
Option Two... it's a reasonable one, but not one I can get behind as it is. And here's why:
  • I'm not picky about how many royals people get, however, I'd much prefer if they were a dib-only thing. Call me a buzzkill, but I'm not fond of the idea of there being massive royal families, when historically, most royal families were not even that big :/
  • IRL, monarchies hold very little if any power in modern society. It's become nothing more of a ceremonial title, and most people don't even know their nation's monarchs, because they get very little attention. Sure, there are exceptions, but the point still stands. It just doesn't tick with me why wizarding society would be that far behind their muggle counterpart in acknowledging that :/
Option Three was the one I debated about voting for, but I can't find myself wanting to demand that existing royals vanish. Nor can I find the want to change everything, since to me it feels like it has been around for long enough that it's become part of the characters, and changing that would change everything.

ACSEvieForSophieSigI knew it when I met him,I loved him when I left him ~Sophie

I'm glad you're all voicing your opinions and concerns! They're very important in terms of easing worries and ensuring everyone is alright with what is ultimately decided on. :)

I'll start off with Yorkie's first comment, then his second, then Soph's, etc. Basically, it's automatically a requirement to include the royal status in a forum. They won't count as exotic, because in all sincerity that's not fair due to the lack of an actual additional ability (which is what defines the term exotic in DARP's tongue). But they will be required to throw in that detail in the history with an explanation of why and how they got that title (aka who in their family was the royal, what position they hold, etc). Should the royal status be gained throughout roleplaying (such as with Owen), then they will also need to notify a bureaucrat and make the according changes. A new forum is pointless; the character is not going to be sorted into a different house. But they really do need to inform a bureaucrat or S&S member so this change doesn't go by unnoticed.

Now, about the title of 'prince' and 'princess'. It all depends per country, but according to the research that I have done it states: In some dynasties, a specific style other than prince has become customary for dynasts, such as fils de France in the House of Capet, and Infante. Infante was borne by children of the monarch other than the heir apparent in all of the Iberian monarchies. Some monarchies used a specific princely title for their heirs, such as Prince of Asturias in Spain and Prince of Brazil in Portugal. It depends with each country and their traditions. With these royal characters, it's crucial we stay as accurate as possible to not mess this up. That's why extensive research is required for every passing royal; you need to ace the information you put down and be able to provide S&S members with sources. We don't want any inconsistencies when it comes to these types of characters.

I have to admit, I don't understand what you mean with "I think it's a bit cherry picking to say some direct heirs etc can but everyone else can't. I'd say either everyone can with good reason or no one can." Do you mean it's not fair to have just some exceptions for direct heirs to the throne? If so, then I just want to let you know that in the end, the reigning monarchs (king & queen) and the direct heir to the throne (the crown prince(ss)) are only allowed to come into play when there's a big expansion that requires their attention instead of a diplomat's. That's the only time in which they can come in, to avoid unrealistic and unnecessary appearances from people that need to be ruling countries or at the very least acting as a representative of their power. If I misunderstood the question, then by all means, please correct my mistake below! I don't want any lingering doubts. :P

So... Soph. You make some very good points and I respectfully acknowledge that. I wanted to give you my two cents, but at the end of the day if you wish to abstain, then I respect that. Basically, your first and last points are very acceptable and irrefutable; there isn't much I can say on that front. However, about option 2.1 - 2.3, the issue with making it dibbable positions is that then people will start to make reservations and end up not making the characters, leaving them closed off to active people that would make good use of them. I understand what you say, though, and if it puts you at ease I can expand on these ideas with Lyss & Carn and see what they think is best.

If need be, we can put whether they can be dibbed or not put to a vote as well. I just personally don't believe they should. It should be first-come, first-serve. The person that first gets the kingdom should be the one to decide how big the family is. While I see your point about royal families being typically small, you also ought to keep in mind our userbase isn't the smallest (even if not the biggest) and we have to give everyone a chance. It wouldn't be fair to let some but not others, you know? And about the Wizarding monarchies being so behind their muggle counterparts, it's canonical that wizards value tradition. They like consistency and prefer to follow decades upon centuries of traditions and old values instead of turning a progressive leaf. That's why I thought it wouldn't be out of this realm for some countries to have monarchies and not others. To tack onto this topic, we also have very little information about the structure of governmental bodies aside from USA, UK and select countries in South America. We wouldn't be breaking canon - as a matter of fact, I daresay we'd even be following it.

Monarchies may hold little power in modern time, but back in the olden ages when most of these modern countries were medieval kingdoms, being a monarch was everything. I sort of envision wizarding communities to value and preserve that tradition, giving more leeway for the monarchies to make decisions. On the other hand, there is the option of the monarchs to rule both the muggle and wizarding sides. Ultimately, that decision of rule styling would be up to the users. (I recognize this only applies to those countries who are still monarchies, but they still very much so exist, so it still works out.) For instance, Bond's Jaina Nordskov rules both aspects of Norway; the muggle & the magical. That is, of course, if I'm not mistaken. There are lots of ways to turn this into one's favor, following canon while not breaking the IRL historical context that follows these medieval kingdoms.

I get that you want to not vote, and I respect that! But I hope you see where I'm coming from. :)

- jayemalik'

I'm abstaining because while I agree that we shouldn't roleplay kings and queens, I personally see no problem with roleplaying princesses/princes until they are actually on the throne. At the end of the day, up until Hogwarts age is plenty of time to groom and train the child and even further once they graduate but allowing heirs at Hogwarts shouldn't be an issue in my personal opinion. I think they should be allowed until it comes time that they must step up to the role of monarch, which could be in thirty years or more depending on the parent's age, health, etc. Plus, princesses and princes have no actual power. It's all title anyway. So I think they should be allowed to be roleplayed until they become a monarch.

ℑ'𝔪 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔭𝔞𝔱𝔯𝔬𝔫 𝔰𝔞𝔦𝔫𝔱 𝔬𝔣 𝔶𝔬𝔲𝔯 𝔡𝔢𝔪𝔦𝔰𝔢. Devil

I vote option 2.3 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ King Of America in option one just uh, won't work out.

i guess you're my.. type of pokemon ;)

Clears throat

I would like to add an addition to the voting options. I was talking with Vic, Catty, and Frost about heir apparents attending Hogwarts. We all agreed that while it seems unrealistic at first glance due to the Wizarding World being years behind in every aspect, including the tradition-breaking agenda that we all agree should happen, the in-character year is 2035. By my calculations, the Wizarding World is maybe 20 years behind, which would put us right around the 2010's.

I would like to reference three things that back up our claims of the modernistic Royal families breaking tradition and why it’s not unrealistic to allow next-in-line to the throne to attend school and thus being able to be roleplayed UNTIL they become a monarch. - Prince Charles had been the first Heir Apparent to attend a public school... in the 1950's. - "It is not unknown for the Royal Heirs to go to school...." - “The education of the British royal family has changed over time, reflecting shifting ideas about education of the aristocracy and the role of the monarchy in the United Kingdom.”

Additional Information:

Heir Apparents who Attended School (there are plenty more than listed):,_Crown_Prince_of_Bahrain,_Duchess_of_Brabant,_Crown_Prince_of_Denmark,_Crown_Prince_of_Japan,_Crown_Prince_of_Jordan While I tried arguing about the traditionalist roles many of the ruling families of the wizarding world, Vic had brought up the fact that the larger countries, like England, or France (If we're going with the old monarchies thing) would be more inclined to catch up with the modern world than other, smaller countries like Monaco due to being infamous and constantly in the public eye.

So, here's our proposition, as agreed upon by me, Vic, Catty, and Frost.

We're proposing that we go along with the general idea of 1 Royal Per User, except add a clause that the larger countries are taking on a more modern twist on the education of their heir apparents, allowing them to attend any school of their choice. This includes Spain, Brazil, India, Japan, China, Russia, England, France, Italy, Wales, Scotland, etc. Meanwhile, the smaller countries, who are not as focused on by the public eye, keep their more traditionalist roles in the education of their heir apparents. This will ultimately allow some direct heirs to attend school and be roleplayed up until they become a Monarch.

Eyes Up, Guardian. LissPageFox

ℑ'𝔪 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔭𝔞𝔱𝔯𝔬𝔫 𝔰𝔞𝔦𝔫𝔱 𝔬𝔣 𝔶𝔬𝔲𝔯 𝔡𝔢𝔪𝔦𝔰𝔢. Devil

💎 How long you be on your phone 💎
💎 When the moon is big and bright 💎
💎 Do your dance dance in the moonlight 💎

~ Thistle 05:21, January 20, 2018 (UTC)

My issues mostly lie with allowing countries that have former monarchies, and even those that didn't have one in the first place, to have royals this time around. I mean, I get that the muggle and the wizarding communities are separate to begin with, but I find it extremely unrealistic to have a King and Queen of the United States - which was built massively upon the idea of democracy, by the way - or having a monarchy in France. You could argue that when the French abolished absolute monarchy in the late 18th Century (only to be replaced by another oppressive system later on smh), the wizarding community didn't have to because their issues are different from the muggles. However, I strongly believe that events that happen in the Muggle world and the Wizarding world are closely related, and I would like to think that the French Revolution affected not just the mundane aspect of French society, but the magical one as well. I think that such an iconic and influential event would not go unheard of in the wizarding world, especially with the ideas of liberté, égalité, fraternité, that became worldwide symbols and inspirations for liberty, equality and freedom, and became the national motto of France.

We could always work on an IC explanation, or re-write canon and all that, but I just, I don't know, find it unrealistic and distasteful to see royal of France running around Hogwarts, because all that pops in my head is the French Revolution, "Let them eat cake," Les Miz, and how there shouldn't be a monarchy in France in the first place, even though the wizarding and muggle communities are not one and the same. Still, I find it weird. I just do.

I'm not totally against the idea, though. Like I said, this is just for countries that don't have monarchies in modern times, because there's a reason why they don't have one or why theirs were abolished. But, I guess having royals from countries like Spain, Belgium, Sweden, Thailand, Brunei, Saudi Arabia etc. works, hence why I've voted for option 2.2.

Newestsigmig "You need me to survive. Which is why you're not letting me go." Migs

My only problem with Option 4 is the lack of a firm definition for what constitutes a modern country. You did list a few examples, but the etc. concerns me. If there was clear list for what those countries are, I'd feel more comfortable voting for that option. However as it stands, there is no clear list which runs into issues with ambiguity, and ambiguity leads to a policy becoming abused because it's now opinion-based instead of a hard and fast rule. Plus, I feel it's just easier to say no heirs period, than to say you can have an heir from some countries but not others. It's a less complicated solution to an already complex issue.
Anchor"Smooth seas have never made for skilled sailors." Talk Anchor

I think what Jaye meant are countries that still have existing monarchies up to this day. So like, France should no longer be on that list because the monarchy there was abolished a long time ago, and like, the United States never had one in the first place. As for what remains, it should be countries that have either constitutional monarchies, like the United Kingdom, or Spain, or Sweden - where the powers vested in a monarch are limited and are more ceremonial than not, or absolute monarchies, like Saudi Arabia and Brunei - where power is still highly centralized and is wielded by the King or Queen. If you want, I can compile a list of which countries still have monarchies just so there could be a definitive list.

Newestsigmig "You need me to survive. Which is why you're not letting me go." Migs

I'm not sure that's the case Miggy. It states it only exists for countries that have a monarchy in modern times, but lists countries like France or Italy as examples of modern monarchies that users would allowed to make heirs for. So, I'm not sure which one it is. I really think that option should be better defined - the lack of definition really concerns me.
Anchor"Smooth seas have never made for skilled sailors." Talk Anchor

It's Modern monarchies, Carn. Only those with a current king and queen via 2018.

Miggy, can you make a list of notable countires with a monarchy? LIke Sweden, England, Belgium, etc. We don't need non-notable countires like Monaco, Morocco(?) etc

Eyes Up, Guardian. LissPageFox

Okay, then why is Option 4 talking about making heirs for countries like France and Italy? Option 4 says and I do quote "That said, there's a twist to is; the monarchies are taking on a more modern twist on the education of their heir apparents, allowing them to attend any school of their choice. This includes Spain, Brazil, India, Japan, China, Russia, England, France, Italy, Wales, Scotland, etc.". If what you are saying is actually the case, the language of Option 4 needs to be corrected.
Anchor"Smooth seas have never made for skilled sailors." Talk Anchor

Because it was edited from what I put above. I was including old Monarchies, but Jaye had vetoed that and said current monarchies only. Which is fine with me.

Eyes Up, Guardian. LissPageFox

Screen Shot 2018-01-21 at 1.52.50 AM

Welp, Liss, I found this infographic by CNN, which should be a credible source.

Newestsigmig "You need me to survive. Which is why you're not letting me go." Migs

Miggy's right - what I meant with that is countries that still have existing monarchies up to this day.

- jayemalik'

Okay, that's fine - but I think the confusing language should be corrected.
Anchor"Smooth seas have never made for skilled sailors." Talk Anchor

Do the rules apply to anyone of royal parentage or just someone who holds a title of prince/princess? For example, would bastards be allowed on DARP as a regular character or a royal character? Also, what about pretenders, such as the Greek Royal Family? Pavlos, the Crown Prince of Greece, is still styled as such by foreign courts and media despite Greece abolition of its monarchy, and his wikipedia picture even has him attending royal events such as foreign royal weddings. The House of Romanov, last ruling family of Russia, has Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna's claim being recognized by the head of the Russian Orthodox Chruch and House of Yi, last ruling family of Korea, in contrast, aren't as active, with nearly all of their members leading normal lives (Two of the male pretenders have worked normal jobs, with Yi Won having worked as a general manager). Assuming that we vote in the direction in which the number of monarchies are limited, would such pretenders by former monarchies be okay to roleplay as a normal character?

왜 이렇게 밤이 길고 왜 이렇게 잠은 안 와? exo-cbx, sweet dreams

The confusing language was corrected. As for your question, Livi, I would say that pretenders by former monarchies would be okay to be roleplayed as normal characters, since they no longer hold any duties that tie them to their country indefinitely.

- jayemalik'

So, I saw this a couple days ago and have been trying to work out what to post here this weekend (been too busy to actually post). First I think this is a complex issue for the wiki and if it was caused by Jaina and myself I apologize. I never intended to cause so much drama and problems with the character. I was told this issue probably didn't come up because of that but if it was a factor I'm sorry. I don't plan on voting just because I think right now I'm the only user with a royal character (other than Carn's adopted character) and I feel like it should be decided by those with less immediate interests.

I thought about writing up historically how world leaders have been used in expansions and for wars and stuff...and while knowing that may be useful I'm not sure how helpful it would be. Instead I thought I'd give my opinion (and only that) on the options presented and some possible other issues this could cause that will need to be handled one way or another.

So first off we have option 1 which I don't like because it means anyone can have a royal from anywhere and that just doesn't make sense to me. Royals have to (in theory) come from a royal bloodline which don't exist everywhere. Sure they could have been magical royals and hidden...but in places that have never had royals this just doesn't jive. All the option 2 varieties are similar but I think I like option 2.3 the best since it gives more users a chance to participate and for countries with no current monarchy that doesn't mean those with royal blood don't still exist. They might not have an actual monarchy to back them up (muggle or magical) but that doesn't mean they couldn't be royal. I think if this is the option we'll need to set up some rules for each country in the list to keep consistency which is difficult. I think option 3 is viable though obviously given my character Jaina that's I'd prefer not give up I don't like it. That being said if that's what would help the wiki stay on track and cause less drama I understand and will. I think option 4 is the most realistic and seems to be what people are voting on but as Carn's pointed out it is a bit vague in some areas but overall workable.

All right...overall issues I see that I think need addressed regardless of what's votes for. I think Royals should be exotic characters mostly so that it narrows it down a little more and we don't suddenly have every user making two of them. Making them exotic and having to fall into those sorting rules would make users decide if they want to use one of their exotic character slots on this (or the two they're allowed) or something else like a werewolf, etc. Another issues I think needs to be addressed is there characters at Hogwarts. If I was the leader of a country (as a figurehead or not) I'd want to make sure a school of magic I was sending them to was safe and that they wouldn't randomly be turned into a werewolf, attacked by acromantulas, or gotten pregnant (all of which have happened here at Hogwarts). Our version of Hogwarts isn't the safest place and if something happened to one of these characters it would bring the international politics and ire of a whole government down on the place which is the last thing we want. As such I think these character's shouldn't be able to have these sorts of life changing events happen to them at Hogwarts. The (unwritten I believe) policy has always been the Headmaster has to approve these types of things at the school anyway because they have to deal with the backlash from parents and Ministry. So...for this to work more smoothly I think it should be agreed IC that Hogwarts has been examined somehow and determined safe for these VIP type characters so they won't need bodyguards, etc. I just figure this helps keep the realism overall and protects Hogwarts from issues later. My other question/issue is one I'm running into Jaina right to keep a character you've developed and care about active after Hogwarts. The non-heir royals (that won't directly be taking the throne) could potentially stay as ICW reps but there's not a lot of other choices for them really because realistically they'd be expected to come back home and help the family in one way or another. For the characters that will take the throne this is doubly true so short of short diplomatic visits or issues that bring them what do we do with them? I dislike the idea of making characters just for Hogwarts so unless the admin team is planning something for these characters or have some ideas how they could be used I just see them going inactive or being deleted since there's nothing for them. Maybe that's ok it's just something people should be aware of when creating them.

I think that's all I have to say on the topic right now...but of course I have a vested interest in trying to make this work and helping as I can. I like the map shown up above and the idea of keeping track of these characters somewhere (maybe a Category page like with the Nymphs?) since we don't want to heirs that will take the throne from the same country or other conflicts. I'm not necessarily looking for the above to be rewritten or adjusted just throwing my thoughts/opinion out there on how to make this stable rather that just a thing people do for a year or two IC then abandon. Bond_em7 (Owl Me) 14:45, January 22, 2018 (UTC)