Live Poll: Noble Oscar-Nominated Performance?

Rex Harrison, Cleopatra Gaius Julius Caesar, Dictator of the Roman Republic Gale Sondergaard, Anna and the King of Siam Lady Thiang, Princess Consort Maria Ouspenskaya Dodsworth Baroness von Obersdorf Emil Jannings The Last Command Grand Duke Sergius Alexander/General Dolgorucki Norma Shearer Romeo and Juliet Juliet - Daughter to Lady Capulet Basil Rathbone, Romeo and Juliet Tybalt - Nephew to Lady Capulet

Nothing like an oldie, but a goodie!!

The 2019 award season may very well be the year of the the royal or noble...Which of these Oscar-nominated performance depicting...I corrected listed duplicate "the" word and singular "performance" useon both poll suggestions.

Royal lines have to start somewhere, usually by force and usually by a conquering army that invades another country or overthrows an existing regime from within. I view Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Marcus Aurelius, and others as being royal. All of these emperors or dictators established or greatly expanded their empires. In the modern world, rulers don't proclaim themselves king anymore. North Korea's Kim dynasty and Napoleon's Second French Empire are great examples. New Empires are by their nature less stable and on the whole more prone to collapsing in a single or a few generations. I see little difference in the actions any of these characters, other than being in the formative stages rather being part of an established stage of an empire. I would agree Dictators and Emperors tend to be more self-made, early house leaders, while kings and princes tend to inherit their titles with more maintaining their house's regime or seeing it though ebbs and flows. Idi Amini's full, formal title, which he conferred upon himself is "His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular." I think Idi if asked considered himself nouveau royalty and his regal sounding for life title seems to support that.I can understand your reservations with those two being the least regal, but I think you would agree they are at the very least dictators. I think the royal definition is a slippery slope, as a more restrictive definition could exclude for instance Roman rulers and other societies that use merit based ascension rules like the Dothraki. I chose broader and more inclusive parameters for the poll to avoid this issue. I feel comfortable with the scope including Kings, Queens, Princes, Princesses, Emperors, Emperoresses, Dictators and Dictatresses, all being roughly on the same level. As always, I include options that are reasonably fit the scope. As always poll takers, who agree can show their support and those who disagree can simply ignore them as viable and cast their vote for another option that fits their definition. It would seem to me the same logic that would allows some Oscar-nominated Emperor(s) or Dictatator(s) to pass without issue should allow these other Oscar-nominated Emperor(s) or Dictatator(s) to pass muster.Charles Boyer Conquest Napoleon Bonaparte: Emperor of FranceRex Harrison, Cleopatra Gaius Julius Caesar, Dictator of the Roman RepublicBrian Aherne Juarez Maximilian von Habsburg: Emperor of MexicoJoaquin Phoenix Gladiator Lucius Aurelius Commodus: Roman emperorCharles Chaplin The Great Dictator Hynkel: Dictator of Tomania Forest Whitaker The Last King of Scotland Idi Amin, President for Life of Uganda (Dictator)

urbanemoviesAs usual, you tell unusual stories when touching history.You know, history is not a story to rewrite each month or year according to political situations as it was widely used in Soviet Union."Dictator" has no semantic equality to "Royal". If a person inherited the royal power to rule other people, it can not automatically mean he/she is, or is going to be a dictator. People always try to wipe dictators out; and the handling same as yours often resulted in killing some persons who was just royal and not dictators.A great example how wrong you are is Victor Emmanuel III versus Benito Mussolini. When placing the fictional character of Benzini Napaloni (prototyped from Mussolini) in the row of royal persons, do you try to convince others that Victor Emmanuel III and his son Umberto II were born dictators?Just think, please, if your going to write a very long answer again.

I am not saying "Dictator" is the semantic equal to "Royal". I am saying for the purposes of this question I am defining the scope to include * King, Queen, Prince, Princess, Emperor, Emperoress, Dictator and Dictatress (real-life or fictional). The reason for doing so is to not exclude viable answers and cherry pick answers. Any measures that includes Emperors and Dictators, excludes Emperors and Dictators or use particular rules of ascension is going to result in an imperfect answer pool in some poll takers eyes. I tried to fully explain this above.Fictional character of Benzini Napaloni and others are in the pool of answers because they fall within the defined scope for the purpose of the question.* King, Queen, Prince, Princess, Emperor, Emperoress, Dictator and Dictatress (real-life or fictional). As do these other Oscar-nominated emperors and dictators: Charles Boyer Conquest Napoleon Bonaparte: Emperor of FranceRex Harrison, Cleopatra Gaius Julius Caesar, Dictator of the Roman RepublicBrian Aherne Juarez Maximilian von Habsburg: Emperor of MexicoJoaquin Phoenix Gladiator Lucius Aurelius Commodus: Roman emperorCharles Chaplin The Great Dictator Hynkel: Dictator of Tomania Forest Whitaker The Last King of Scotland Idi Amin, President for Life of Uganda (Dictator)I would recommend trying to see all sides of this issue and not ignore the facts on the other side. I also didn't see you dispute the most of the movie examples I gave in support, as well as real life examples given in support.Those that take issue with a specific option are free not to vote for it, but shouldn't force others who have a broader perspective the opportunity not to vote for their choice. I have included all options that could fit the broadest definition of "royal". I would recommend trying to see all the issues at play here and look beyond your own viewpoint. Are you saying no Emperors or Dictators could be possibly considered royal, in the past or future or are you taking issue with a single example?Charles Chaplin The Great Dictator Hynkel: Dictator of Tomania and Forest Whitaker The Last King of Scotland Idi Amin, President for Life of Uganda (Dictator) are included in the pool of answers because they are dictators. Dictators are included for the purpose of the question in the scope of the poll. Some dictators are more perfect examples than others, but poll takers are left to decide which ones fit their personal requirements or definitions. I agree these two are the weakest options in most people eyes, but I can also can see how an argument can be made for their inclusion (or exclusion).

Oops, you did it again. The extra-long text with nothing new inside. Wouldn't it be more fruitful to also analyse the others' opinions?You are mixing three different things into one: royal, dictator, emperor. If the simpliest links provided are not enough for understanding, please try M.Webster and other special sources.There would be no objections, if you, e.g., prepare the poll one of the following variants: Call it "Favorite Dictator Performance" and include there all known dictators, who can be a member of royal family (Tsar, Duke, Prince(-ss), King, Queen...) or not be such one (Prime-Minister, President, Caesar...);or Call it "Favorite Emperor Performance" and include there all known emperors, who can be both royal or not royal family - it depends on the fact they rule more than one nation and country;or Leave the same name for your poll but exclude the terms "dictator" and "emperor", as well as relative fictional characters.

I don't think you fully understand the complexity of the issue. What you suggest is just trading is just one set issues for another set of issues. Even by using the same peerage term doesn't guarantee consistency, as it can mean different things in different countries, periods and circumstances. Plus, authoritative sources support the terms are synonyms for each other, rather than your contention that they are not."You are mixing three different things into one: royal, dictator, emperor." This also would apply to their female versions of the male term. https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/emperorSynonyms for emperor noun rulerczardictatorempresskingmonarchsultanprincesovereignI gave all of this prior thought and factoring in everything; I thought the best course of action is to use a broad definition and allow individual poll takers to decide for themselves. Your solution is really no solution at all.

No doubt "This also would apply to their female versions of the male term" - this is not the problem if you understand the main idea of the objections."Authoritative sources support the terms are synonyms for each other" - name them and links, please."I don't think you fully understand the complexity of the issue" - this statement of yours is really out of my understanding because I see no issue in the topic relative to your poll, but only the issue in the way you present it. The only tolerant variant you used above is the word "ruler", so thank yourself to have the 4th variant to name your poll - just using "ruler" instead of "royal".PS: the synonyms you quote above may be close in some context, but you should check their definitions to understand the difference that in this current case may mislead other people.

"the synonyms you quote above may be close in some context," Please, check the definition of synonym. 1 : one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses It is not a stretch to assume similarly titled characters are basically the same. Synonyms are by their very nature slight variations, it would be pointless to have twenty words that all mean exactly the same thing. As for misleading people, I specifically define my terms within the question for the purpose of the question. However, I can't help if people mislead themselves with connotations that go beyond the meaning of the word or invoke their own ethnocentric biases.

Thanks

Corrected.

Thanks, it is much appreciated.

Thanks, I changed it back to Royal and corrected Empress. I was trying to placate someone's perceived issue, but it created a new problem, as you point out. I defined the scope to the ruling family, meaning the sovereign and the immediate family. I think I have clearly stated what title and the question's scope covers also. It should be good to go now.

Thanks, but the correction to Empress wasn't made.

Thanks, I fixed Empress again, this time I hit save.

I completed ALL the changes, including a title update. This poll suggestion is good to go now.

country's correctedKing, Emperor, Dictator Sultan, Tsar, Khal, Pharaohs, Shah, Imperator,Autokrator Kaiser, Etc.IMHO, they all are just labels and although I can see slight differences, they all amount to the same thing. Plus, all royal lines have to start somewhere. I am just not pretending there is a distinction when there isn't one, by what some one chooses to call themselves or the methods of they gain power. I am also avoiding each claim of royalty, by accepting them all or the widest definition, as opposed to having to decide who is more royal than the other or who is a true royal in the first place. Regardless, it seems like a lot of so-called "royal rulers" came to power in some other way than inheritance 1) with the consent of the Praetorian Guard. 2) by vote of great council of Westerosi nobles 3) being appointed by political factions 4) military coup 5) conqueror 6) King by combat 7) election by people,. Etc.I don;t see how any of these can be more royal than the others, based on the circumstances and the label on their position, It seems like if exclude one, then you might start cutting deeper, as some the same reasoning would be applicable to others. Napoleon Bonaparte: Emperor of France Gaius Julius Caesar, Dictator of the Roman Republic Maximilian von Habsburg: Emperor of Mexico Nero: Emperor of Rome Idi Amin, President for Life of Uganda (Dictator)Synonyms for emperor noun rulerczardictatorempresskingmonarchsultanprincesovereign

You just keep playing the substitution of notions. By means of wrong placing the synonyms also.PRODUCER and ADMINISTRATOR are close synonyms to DIRECTOR...but you don't use them when contributing a directing crew to IMDb, do you?

The etymology (it is used to be called so, and not "ethnocentric biases") explains well the difference between two things that are mixed artificially into one in your poll:The dictator as a magistrate of the Roman Republic (this is where this term initially started);The dictator as a political leader who possesses absolute power (this is how mostly understood in modern world) as the closest synonym to "tyrant", in your poll: Hynkel (Dictator of Tomania), Benzini Napaloni (Dictator of Bacteria), Idi Amin.

The issue here isn't limited to synonyms, even when you use the same term like emperor or empress, you get varying results of royal-ness and different methods of power ascension: Catherine the Great , Empress of Russia from 1762 until 1796 came to power following a coup d'état which she organizedNero, Emperor of Rome from (54 AD–68 AD) came to power with the consent of the Praetorian Guard.Napoleon III, Emperor of the French from 1852 until 1870 came to power elected by the French peopleMaximilian von Habsburg, Emperor of Mexico from 1864 to 1867 invited Maximilian to establish a new pro-French Mexican monarchy wiith the support of the French army and a group of Conservative Party monarchists.This issue is far more complicated than at first glance, and in my opinion, the best way to deal with it is by treating them all the same.

You may "treat" them as you wish, and I believe that nobody here is going to close the door for "treating" to the voters. But it is disgusting if intentional, and ridiculous for an educated one to say that Hynkel, or Napaloni, or Idi Amin belong to a royal family (no matter fictional or not). This is the ONLY PROBLEM. An ethic and moral problem.The three variants were proposed and one you proposed by your own how to keep the clean idea in good mood.

That is sort of the point, no one 100% agrees, in fact it is quite common. They are all going to have both supporters and detractors of their claim to the throne. The fact whether you support one claim and not the other is irrelevant. What is relevant, is the fact that they are in power or vying for control of a country or kingdom, they are making a claim of divine right and they have some measure of support, no matter how small. You can probably find just as many people who say these four below are royalty, as you can find ones, who say they are not. Some one like Idi Amin can take power and declare themselves African royalty and bestow themselves titles, "His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular." and a Dictator by someJust like, Daenerys Targaryen can by calling herself: Queen of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men, Protector of the Seven Kingdoms, Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea, Lady of Dragonstone, Breaker of Chains, Mother of Dragons, The Unburnt, formerly Queen of Meereen and the Queen of Ashes by some.and those claims have some degree of credibility, no less than James Francis Edward Stuart, can make to being called the rightful heir to the crown and by the Grace of God, King of Scotland, England, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc and nicknamed "The Old Pretender" by some.or another ruler, Genghis Khan born Temüjin who was first in his line and made himself King by founding what what would become the largest contiguous empire in history after his death and would be called the first Great Khan of the Mongol Empire, the first Khagan of the Mongol Empire, Supreme Khan of all the Mongols and King of Kings. Just because, you don't see it that way doesn't mean others don't. The solution is simple don't vote for those three, but don't deny others the right to vote for them, if their opinion differs from yours. I don't think you can deny that are some reasonable arguments to be made for their inclusion, whether or not you agree. Just like, I can't deny that you make some fair points, too. (Even though you don't use any facts, just cite your opinions and claim others are ridiculous for offering a dissenting viewpoint.)I am unclear what the ethical and morality problem is, when there have been monarchs that have been far crueler than Idi Amin ever was, not that he was a saint himself. I am not defending him, just calling it like it is. All, I am just trying to establish a level playing field for all, despite the "labels" people like to attach. Whitewashing the supposedly good king conquerors from the supposedly bad king conquerors is no justice at all. It also seems interesting that you don't seem to have a problem with any of the Roman dictators listed being claimed, only the more modern ones. So, maybe, historical perspective is coming into play here.

urbanemovies, you must be kidding... or just sneaking to masque the truth.History knows a lot of real examples when some persons claimed themselves to be kings, but that did not mean they became a part of the royal family. Sitting on a hand-made throne does not automatically mean you are a member of the royal family. To be a king does not automatically mean you are a tyrant / dictator. These are not an opinion or a point as you trying to show instead, these are historical facts.When in this poll the term "royal family" points to the fictional satirical dictators as its integral part, then it's not just a bad taste of your personal list but an IMDb showcase on this question in the form that may be not only entertaining for some voters but also abusive for current royal families:Belgian Royal FamilyBritish Royal FamilyCanadian Royal FamilyDanish Royal FamilyDutch Royal FamilyLiechtenstein Princely FamilyLuxembourg Grand Ducal FamilyNorwegian Royal FamilySpanish Royal FamilySwedish Royal FamilyThai Royal Familyand others, and for common people who live in the countries where monarchy is an enjoyable tradition.(BTW, I am from a country where people hate monarchy, and we have strong opposite traditions)