User talk:Hlavac

Hello Hlavac, welcome to Wikipedia!

There are lots of resources around to help guide you. be sure to check out:

Also check out

wikipedia:image use policy before uploading any images

If you need any help try

Don't be afraid of making the odd mistake, there are any number of others eagerly waiting for a chance to correct it! Incidentally, remember to give people's nationality, even if it's obvious to you.

There IS NO SUCH THING as a European Royal Prerogative and it was an abuse of wiki rules to move a valid article under its correct name to a ficticious name you made up. The Royal Prerogative ONLY exists in countries with common law and a monarchy. Thus it exists only in the UK and some commonwealth countries. If you don't understand that try reading a textbook on the matter. If you persist in trying to manufacture 'facts' that do not exist, by trying to pretend that other things are the Royal Prerogative when they are not, and fictionalising stuff by adding on stuff that refers to something else into the Divine Right of Kings page I will call for your banning. No other user agrees with you. No textbook agrees wiith you. Yet you keep trying to doctor pages to add in blatently wrong information which is demonstrably wrong. This is an encyclopædia not a place for you to propose blatently and demonstrably inaccurate theories when users are queing up to tell you you are wrong. Do that again and I will call for your banning. FearÉIREANN 18:28 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

1. STOP putting mesages on people's user pages. Use their talk pages.

2. Your lack of knowledge on the topic is astounding. Royal Prerogative is a specific term only used to describe a particular body of royal powers only existing in common law jurisdictions. There is only ONE such country in Europe, the UK, the rest are in the Commonwealth. THEY EXIST NOWHERE ELSE, as you would know if you knew the first thing about the the topic. Royal powers exist worldwide and by all mean go and write an article about them. But the term Royal Prerogative is specific to one body of powers operating under one specific form of law. It is as unique to common law jurisdictions as President of the United States is unique to the United States, as the divinity of the Japanese emperor is to Japan, as the papal tiara is to the papacy. Just because many monarchs have crowns does not mean you turn an article specifically on papal tiaras to an article on crowns. You may mention them in passing, but the text is about a specific crown worn by a specific office-holder. Similarly you may mention what a president is generically in an article on the US president, but the main body of text is about the US president because that is what the article is about.

3. Divine Rights of Kings does not refer to divinity claims by monarchs, it is a specific term used in a specific area in a specific timeframe based on a specific theology. It existed only in Europe in the mediæval period. It was based on Christian theology about how a monarch reigned by the Grace of God and was at the heart of the English Civil War as well as being central to the political systems in France, Spain, etc. It was replaced through revolution and the concept of popular sovereignty. If you want to write an article about royal concepts of divinity worldwide go ahead, but the Divine Right of Kings was a specific term used only in Europe, only by Christian monarchs and it specfically meant the divine right of kings to rule as God's anointed. Claims of regal divinity elsewhere were not based on christian theology because the monarchs were not christian. Different concepts in different states were referred to with different names.Divine Right of Kings is the term used exclusively to refer to a mediæval European concept and is used by no monarchy elsewhere and the term is never used by historians to refer to divinity claims elsewhere because unlike in Japan etc European monarchs did not claim divinity, just that there office has a God-given right to rule.

By all means create articles to write in general about royal powers or monarchical claims to divinity . But Royal Prerogative and Divine Right of Kings are specific articles about a specific concept, not general discussions. Any attempt by you to try to turn them into broader discussions than the specific topics they are about will be reverted every time. If you are not sure how to start an article, I'll start ones here for you. Royal claims to divinity, Royal powers. You can enter either of those and write an article on the topics from international perspectves, and then if you want link them to the RP and DRoK articles by adding the above names at the end of the articles, under a See Also heading. Any attempt simply to move the current articles to new names will be reverted and will lead to calls for your banning. Apart from anything else your earlier attempt broke all the links from other articles to the original pages and caused chaos. FearÉIREANN 20:54 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi there. The meanings of technical terms are usual different from their origin English meanings. "red quark" in particle physics is not really red, "common law" is not that common and royal prerogative could be just royal prerogative in UK.

The true problem is: Do Jtdirl and Roadrunner use the terms royal prerogative and Divine right of kings in traditional way? Or do they violate the principle of Wikipedia by using them POV-ly?

If it is the first case, then they have no choice but to revert your editions. It is not up to them, they have to follow the guideline in political science. If it is the second case, then you should write a formal complain.

I suppose that you feel uncomfortable that the terms Divine right of kings and royal prerogative being fixed to mean Divine right of kings in Europe and royal prerogative in UK, instead of their much boarder "face values". But if their narrow meanings are already employed as standard among political scientists, then they should be used in Wikipedia, no matter how "Eurocentric" they are.

Imagine somebody read an article related to "Divine right of kings", which most likely using the standard meaning, and he wants to know more about it. He will be confused if he read a version using a nonstandard meaning.

I wish I do not misinterpret your concern. wshun 07:08 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There has been great contention over my original post to an empty page about royal prerogative and divine right -- and there have been vehement attacks upon me and questioning my intellectual abilities. Be that as it may -- I will no longer add anything here in wikipedia about the subjects -- however -- I cannot let it rest. Therefore, on my own webpage, which I pray I'm allowed to link to from my own talk page, and perhaps from my own bio-page -- I work further on the idea -- and point out numerous other writers and internet pages on the subject. I am not the only one on the planet who believes as I do. http://www.geocities.com/practicalist/royal

And that's it for me. User:Hlavac

Hi. I'm glad you didn't mind me adding to Perry Como - and that someone finally had the initiative to start the article. I have fond memories of his weekly show. It was one of the first things I ever watched on TV.

I think I understand where you're coming from on the divine right, etc. However, wikipedia is very mainstream and not a place to experiment with alternative ideas. I don't think anybody minds that you think differently, as long as you are willing to go along with the consensus view. Deb 17:27 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)