Woman Discovers She's An African Princess

[whateva]

jam said:

I'm not saying that there aren't actual kings in Africa, I'm talking specifically about the girls father, the girl he posted about in the first post in this thread.

Kings are a post-chieftan phenomena. Otherwise every little warlord is a king - rather useless.

Of course King can be used to describe the equivalent person all over the world, but this guy's not.

I agree that there is more to be king than just running a village.

It demands that you have a state apparatus behind you(even if it don't have to be a recognised state) and that your domain spans some geographical distance with local executives/subrulers of some power(at least running a village). Perhaps one should also ad that there should be more superficial features of royal institution such as symbols of royalty and some kind of idea the person or family governing being of especially noble status.

also it should be noted that it's good to be the king!

There's probably more but that was a quick definition.

My apologies for thinking you were arguing against African monarchy altogether. Jeg vil heller ikke skændes ;D

As for the video I can't comment on that since I have some problems watching videos.

[nock]

rigaud said:

nock said:

C'mon Charlie you know there is a difference in being the ruler of millions and of few dozens. If any village has a king being king means nothing.

Somehow your logic doesn't make sense to me Mr strawman, lol. Are you saying mere numbers of subjets is what makes one a king?

Well, yes. Size matters ...

[rhoadie]

I am so happy for her. I know she is ecstatic to truly discover who she really is. It is almost like a real life fairytale. I love the fact that she is doing something to change the community that she is now apart of. It is wonderful that she has started a non-profit, and rebuild the school that her father started. I am glad that her adoptive parents are so supportive of her.

[jam]

Maybe I was a bit pedantic about it, sorry.

It sure's a fairy tale like story.

[imaginarypallies]

does anybody remember the White guy (dutch?) who found out he was an African prince? This was a couple of years ago posted in either Dodona 1 or RM 3(alex's RM)

[Fred]

jam said:

Maybe I was a bit pedantic about it, sorry.

Jam, you've been absolutely correct here, but let me add something:

English king comes from the Proto-Germanic, but is likely not of Indo-European derivation, and may (or may not) have had a different meaning originally. However, it has for some time now been used to translate the Indo-European regs, or ruler (of many people - more than a chieftain), found in Indic raj, Latin rex, Continental Celtic rix, Insular Celtic rig.

You're right about the concept, however. The term in English has a relatively specific Indo-European meaning, with many certain (but intangible) associations, and should not be used to describe rulers of whatever it may be in non-Indo-European nations, especially non-Caucasoid. If we take care to use the Japanese daimyo and shogun, and the Egyptian pharaoh, then here the native SS African terms should be the most proper.

We do sometimes use the term for rulers of non-Indo-European nations, and non-Caucasoid, but it is still incorrect to do so. For example, we call him King Shulgi of Ur, but there never was a king Shulgi of Ur.

[jam]

Isn't it a bit of an Eurocentric term when you think about it?

[sayadon]

This discussion is way too pedantic, and it wallows too much in semantics. I love it!!

So what do you guys mean "King" is a European concept? Isn't there an equivalent concept among other cultures? If the difference is only in protocols and customs, not in scope of power and symbolism, then we must be able to gather these terms under one umbrella term. You already mentioned Indo-European terms of equivalent value, terms from other cultures must also be equivalent.

But as far as this guy is concerned, no he's not a king according to any average person. He's not a chieftain or warlord either. He is something else. The confusion stems from the fact that we still insist on calling African nations "tribes". I don't know what's so "tribe" about Yoruba and Fulani!

[jam]

Well, they must have their own word for his position. that would be appropriate.

[jam]

Yeah, it can - But actually in this context "Middle East" and Europe is a bit of a continuum, historically.

But I didn't mean that it can't be used as a term for kings and the like in other areas (as I already wrote), but that is has a specific meaning, coined in Europe to describe European royalty (talking about king) and it's also used to describe other continets equivalent people, when Europeans describe them!
It's an Eurocentric term in the sense that there'a always a local word for the people, but it isn't always used by Europeans. Exceptions inlude Zar, Sultan, Pharoe, Mughal etc.