Talk:Princess

Explain..
''A Princess is in line for the throne if she is the oldest heir, although if she is approximately the same age as a male heir, he may have the preference. If the King dies or retires without having a male heir, the princess will become the ruler and take over as Queen.''

Can someone explain to me how the stuff I wrote and was undone by Sea Terror any different to what is already written on the page? If the stuff I wrote, which incidentally is just "the long way of writing the same thing thats already present on the page, then why is there anything like this on the page to begin with.

Surely if what I wrote isn't allowed, then neither is this brief summery. Sorry I had to bring this up as the same logic used to revert my edit also is applicable to what you have on the page to begin with and it really perked my curiosity. One-Winged Hawk (talk) 18:18, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

To add to this;
 * heir apparent - means "next person likely to be King/queen".
 * Heir persumptive - means "could be heir if anything happens to the heir apparent".

'''A Princess is in line for the throne if she is the oldest heir, although if she is approximately the same age as a male heir, he may have the preference. '''

In other word the "male heir" is the heitr apparent. The princess in this paragraph is heir presumptive. As I said, all I did was take what was written and expand upon it, adding the technical terms that would apply to any situaiton be it real world or One Piece.

Or is Sea Terror just being Sea Terror and undoing edits for no reason again without giving anyone the chance to explain or asking for an explaination from the editor... As usual. I don't edit very often... If at all.. But I see no reason to undo my edit at all on this one. TRweak it, yes, undo it no. ¬_¬ One-Winged Hawk (talk) 18:26, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

You obviously didn't check the edit history if you said I did it for no reason. "The reason stuff like this was removed before is because it is real world and not in universe." The way I had it kept it completely in universe. The way you have it is out of universe because it is assuming that is how the world of One Piece works. I did this on multiple articles too like Axe or Swords SeaTerror (talk) 20:32, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

Bump. I think the readers would actually want to know what a princess, axe and sword are (assume they don't know at first, someone actually may not, no matter how obviously otherwise it may seem), and then use the information to interpret the in-story role. 05:16, December 17, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you even read my last comment. SeaTerror (talk) 07:15, December 17, 2014 (UTC)

I actually agree with ST here. A lot of the content of the material in question is based on saying things like "they are known as 'heir apparent'", etc, which in the universe of One Piece, are terms that are never used. 18:46, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, what ST and JSD said. We don't know if the information applies to the One Piece World at all. I mean, it doesn't even apply to all modern monarchies. There's this thing called absolute primogeniture, you know. 19:53, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

I guess whoever started this article just wanted to give a general and realistic explanation of what a princess is, before delving into the princesses of One Piece. Somewhere along the lines, someone decided to add extraneous stuff in the explanation. I guess we should just revert it to a brief explanation and then in-story will be expanded. 22:42, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

As the page sits now, it's fine, so I'm closing this section. 22:52, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Should we include Bellett?
Bellett was turned into a woman by Ivankov, so in theory, she is now a princess, so, should we include her in the table of known princesses (as well as in the "Princesses" category) and give her the status of "unknown"? DekkenMinus (talk) 01:28, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

By that time Bellet had already lost his status and been forced into piracy. I mean, that's why he was in ID in the first place. So no, he's just a former prince. 01:53, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for answering. DekkenMinus (talk) 02:08, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

Subcategory and possible adds
I tried to put the Princess and Queen categories as subcategories to the Female category, but I don't think I did it right. I'd appreciate some assistance. I'm also a bit curious on whether or not Big Mom's children can be considered Royalty since she's the Queen of Totland, but I could be wrong. Does anyone else have any opinions on that? Other than that, do Marigold and Sandersonia count as Princesses as well? I'm thinking not, what Hancock got was most likely by right of merit than birth, in my opinion. And to the previous section, I agree of not putting Bellet in the list (although, I'd like to think "their" gender change was short lived than permanent, giving I found it a bit upsetting and worrisome, the former for obvious reasons and the latter because "they're" probably still in Impel Down which would be bad all things considering).--Observer Supreme 16:10, July 26, 2016 (UTC)

Hancock was an empress, not a monarchic queen, so unless they explicitably are called princesses, they're technically (so far) not. You have a point concerning Big Mom. She calls herself queen and with the whole Walder-Frey-like family idea you'd indeed think her children would be princesses. Let's see what others think. 16:41, July 26, 2016 (UTC)

We consider the Vinsmoke children royalty since their father is king, so the same should apply for the Charlottes. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 16:51, July 26, 2016 (UTC)

Vinsmokes are a royal family recognized by the WG and have been referred to with such titles. Big Mom is a pirate who essentially just formed her own country and the Charlottes haven't been called royalty. Maybe they're ministers like Moscato. We should not add them unless they're explicitly called princes or princesses. 17:08, July 26, 2016 (UTC)

You all make good points. Probably best to wait and see how the current arc and how the stories in it go, both wedding and Reverie alike. Although, I don't I can remove the Female category thing from both the princess and queen articles. That's what I meant when I had some difficulty in making them subcategories. Sorry for my error.--Observer Supreme 17:38, July 26, 2016 (UTC)

Waiting it is, then. I'll look into the category problem 17:40, July 26, 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Observer Supreme 18:04, July 26, 2016 (UTC)

Non-Canon Princesses Category
We have something similar for Anime-only Marines like Z, so maybe we should do that for the non-canon princess recently added. Thoughts?Observer Supreme 20:40, March 14, 2018 (UTC)

We only have Anime only Marines because there are a crapload. There is only 1 non-canon princess. SeaTerror (talk) 21:33, March 14, 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess that’s understandable.Observer Supreme 21:55, March 14, 2018 (UTC)

Name
Shouldn't it just be called Princess? The Baskerville head doesn't even have it own page and every time he is mentioned separately the link is for Baskerville, and even if someone would be confused, the For takes care of it. Rhavkin (talk) 17:27, May 26, 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a fair point.Observer Supreme 17:55, May 26, 2018 (UTC)