Talk:Rothschild family

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Family Wealth Decline dispute[edit]

The introduction to the article suggests,

"The family's wealth is believed to have subsequently declined, as it was divided amongst hundreds of descendants" (lines 8-9)n't

This doesn't make any sense.

The family appear to be largely about abundantly creating wealth through themselves (the family) by all of their daily activities. So, the more of the newer generation of Rothchilds that are invested in by the family and savvy investors, when the harvest from whatever ideas and plans they have are ripe, they reap the bigger crop. Just like they have done over the last 200 odd years.

Only this time now, there are more Rothschilds all over the world (including China) creating new financial networks, commercial bases and also jobs for those people who only wish to take salaries for their daily actvities, too (the public people, which is comprised of the large, yet humble majority of a population of a country).

It doesn't sound like the House of Rothchild are "actually" less wealthy than before, really. If they've spunked half their wealth on hundreds of seedling Rothchild Empire Hubs sprouting all over the world, then it's possible that they are poorer now because they're acting and investing on a plan to become considerably richer than me, you, or in fact, anyone else in the future. Will they succeed? Who knows? Maybe, but then others want the same thing, too.

If the Rothchilds can fundamentally participate in the emergence of a dominating global currency from all their offspring multinational banks, they they'll be able to upgrade their homes further and donate those current homes they have to the public trusts/charities they know for everyone to enjoy.

But, if they don't succeed, then they'll just have to think of something else to do as they observe many other things emerging on the global scene from within those big houses they weren't able to upgrade from.

Anyway, my point being, "The family's wealth is believed to have subsequently declined, as it was divided amongst hundreds of descendants" Hmmm... I'm dubious, to be honest. If there are hundreds of them, then it's likely that the idea is to become richer in future than before.

To be be fair to them, we all share the same goal... to be richer than before. So, they're just the same as us, only their plans and chatting skills are much better than ours. You can clearly see that for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. To be honest, you are quite dubious. And yes, I am certain that their chatting skills are much better than yours. (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of how little hard information is in the opening. What does wealthiest family mean exactly? If you can't give me hard numbers then at least more background on where the notion is coming from. Same with the decline. According to whom, on what standards? All I can see is that they're less wealthy because it's spread over more family members. Perhaps what we're really talking about is relative wealth/influence? Anable (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

A Rothschild confession[edit]

Here, Baron Phillipe de Rothschild refers to his family as "the richest and most powerful family in the world":

How rich are they compared to the Walton family? -- (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Mendicants compared to the Waltons. (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


This article caters to conspiracy theorist, and has way to much unless and non factual information in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Wording of the lede[edit]

Per WP:BRD: since the revert had no edit summary whatsoever, I wonder if I could receive an explanation on this talk page. Which of the contents I added was wrong or otherwise inappropriate? Why is a book on "Managerial History in Japan" (ISBN 0195131657) a better source on the Rothschilds then a book on the Rothschilds themselves (ISBN 0670868574)? And why did you revert my correction of "1800s" (which can mean both the decade and the century) to the less ambiguous "19th century"? --bender235 (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You added things to lede (for example about them originating as Court Jews), which were not only unsourced but also factually incorrect to anyone who has read about the subjects of the article (they had much more humble origins). The source at the top is also from Oxford University Press - it's the most reliable source that could be found on the matter. The 19th century correction is a good idea - apologies I didn't see that. Avaya1 (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but contrary to your belief, the publisher does not make a source credible. The author does. Which is, however, not to say that your Japan book isn't a reliable source. It sure is. However, it makes little sense citing this off-topic book when there are countless books available on the actual subject of this article. One of which I named (ISBN 0670868574).
Of what I added, nothing is wrong. Everything, including the origin as Court Jews is sourced. If needed, I can provide more sources. For example, I might refer you to the chapter "The Last of the Court Jews: Mayer Amschel Rothschild and His Sons" (pp. 79–96 in ISBN 3-7913-1624-9). Mayer Amschel Rothschild started as what is now known as Court Jew. He was named "court factor" by William I, Elector of Hesse in 1769 (see p. 65 in ISBN 0670868574). Can you provide reliable sources that say something different? --bender235 (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The publisher makes the source credible, not the author (otherwise deciding on which author is credible would be purely subjective). Secondly, the book is not 'off-topic' but discussing the subjects of the article in this passage, and it is a work on family businesses and it exactly supports what your own sources say. Thirdly, Mayer Amschel Rothschild was merely entitled to hang a sign over his business, saying that he was a hoffaktor, he wasn't an actual Court Jew in the sense that historians use it as a financier serving at the court, although his sons would take on those roles. He was merely a banker operating in the Frankfurt Ghetto, with a sign over his business. And the statement you wrote about "unlike previous court Jews, Rothschild managed to bequest the wealth he acquired" is factually incorrect, since actual Court Jews (such as Samuel Oppenheimer) established banking dynasties a century earlier (there are more examples in Italy), and other Court Jews such as Salomon Oppenheim's family have maintained their family banking business from the 17th century until today. The mention of Mayer Amschel's title/sign is appropriate in the body of the article. Avaya1 (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If one (like you) reads "unlike previous Court Jews" as Rothschild being the only one to go from court factorship to private banking, then yes, the statement is wrong. He wasn't the only one. Bleichröders in Berlin did so, Seligmanns in Munich, Oppenheims in Bonn, and Kaullas in Stuttgart. All in circa 1800. (Oppenheimer in Vienna did not. He never founded a private bank. His descendents did, some decades later, in Hanover). I will fix the wording.
Mayer Amschel Rothschild was, in fact, what is now known as Court Jew. If you had bother to check the sources I named, you would've seen there's an entire chapter in ISBN 3-7913-1624-9 that describes Rothschild's role as court agent to the Landgrave of Hesse-Hanau. For instance, how he provided finance for the some 17,000 troops Friedrich II sent to North America in the 1770s and 80s.
Further, here's a quote for you, from a different chapter in ISBN 3-7913-1624-9, p. 41: "it can scarcely be denied that the Oppenheims, Rothschilds, Seligmanns, and Kaullas were court factors before they founded private banks." I hope the author wrote it clear enough.
I will revert your changes, since you have failed to provide a reliable source which contradicts the ones I provided. --bender235 (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Court Jews or not that is info for the finance section not the lede. The lede has been edited and content moved. If you can cite an exact page this should be added. (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Citing a page for what?
And second, the lede does not explain court Jew, it only says Mayer Amschel was one, and to whom. What's wrong with that? --bender235 (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
That they are court Jews is good info. There's no problem with that. All Jewish barons are court Jews. It just doesn't belong in the lede, and not the detailed way it was worded. Too complicated for the lede. The paragraph has been moved to simplify who the Rothschilds are, not about their exact finance roles. (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Explaining their origin in half a sentence is not to complicated. Mayer Amschel Rothschild started as a Court Jew, that's a fact. Why not mention that in the lede? And what does this sentence mean: "As court Jews to the Landgraves of Hesse-Kassel, in the Free City of Frankfurt in the late 18th century." Your created it, please explain.
And what on Earth do you mean by "All Jewish barons are court Jews"? There is no implicit connection between a Jew being enobled and him being a Court Jew. --bender235 (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
That was the paragraph moved, not sourced by myself. It should be moved on down into finance section.
Not all Jews are court Jews only when made barons to the empire. Not all barons are Jewish and not all bankers are Jewish (as implied on the court jew page). Thus the Jewish barons are the court Jews serving the empire. The very origin and definition of what is a "court Jew" (slang for Jewish baron). (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that is just utter non-sense. A "court Jew" was a Jewish merchant/banker who was employed at a court by a baron (or duke, king, emperor, for that matter). They were not "made barons to the empire". Where did you get that non-sense from? --bender235 (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
And where does Court Jews impy that "all bankers are Jewish"? --bender235 (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Has nothing to do with the complicated lede. If you want to discuss what is the court jew do it over on that page, but you are most certainly mistaken. The Jewish servant of the empire is not employed by anyone. Any servant is knighted or made baron. And the court jew can serve the empire in other capacities besides banking. Thus court jew and international banking are not synonymous as that page erroneously says. The 'court' was ran by the Templars who were the barons and ran the empire. Rothschilds coat of arms, the red shield -- all come from the Templars. Today they are Famous Freemasons where the Templars are found, since absolved. They are barons of the empire and as Jews considered "court jews" i.e. not Catholic. (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't help but think I'm being trolled here. Ignoring all that Templar-Freemason-conspiracy bullshit, please for one provide a source for your claim that court Jews were "knighted or made baron". And I'm talking of reliable sources here.
Also, where does this page say "court jew and international banking are synonymous"?
And finally, why did you add "As court Jews to the Landgraves of Hesse-Kassel, in the Free City of Frankfurt in the late 18th century." again? That is only half of a sentence. It has no meaning. What did you do there? --bender235 (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


Needs to have a section on Freemasonry (N M Rothschild's name is carved on the marble slab of the most eminent Masons in London's Grand Lodge) and also a section on the Star of David symbol which they used when holding Masonic sessions. The currency & use of this symbol comes from the House of Rothschild & their commissioning of new synagogue buildings with this symbol.--Wool Bridge (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Got an WP:RS for that? --bender235 (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The barons are of the knights of the old holy roman empire that was dissolved in 1870. The secular knights rolled into Freemasonry. The Templars official website says the Templars are in FM York Rite. These Templars were / are the barons. The Rothschilds are on the list of Famous Freemasons. This "red shield" was the shield of the Templars or Jolly Roger. (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

To start with from Wikipedia: [[1]] James Mayer de Rothschild, Financier, Initiated Oct. 24, 1802: Emulation Lodge No. 12, London[27] Nathan Mayer Rothschild, Financier, Initiated Oct. 24, 1802: Emulation Lodge No. 12, London[5][27]

There is a book with a Christian agenda, called Six-Pointed Star: Its Origin and Usage by O J Graham, ISBN-10: 0968938302, which has some reasonable facts mixed up with a paranoid Catholic rhetoric against Freemasonry. In Hebrew the Hexagon is the Magen David which means the Shield of David and the Red Shield is the description of this symbol on the House of Rothschild's coat of arms. The hexagon denoted Freemasonry in the late 17th or early 18th century with reference to the temple of Solomon , later it symbolised Jewish Freemasonry and now it symbolises Judaism alone. This is confusing for the layman who finds this symbol in all kinds of diverse places from Islamic buildings to such things as the Orange Order or US state institutions --Wool Bridge (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The history of the origin of the family name is false[edit]

As is shown by this article in the NY Times dated Oct 11, 1863.

The House of Rothschild

Among all the congresses held this summer, of princes, lawyers, musicians, schoolmasters, social science men, political economists, and a hundred others, one very notable meeting has almost escaped public attention. A few days ago, our Paris correspondent told us that a congress of the members of the illustrious house of Rothschild has been sitting at Paris. The purport of the meeting was nothing less than to rearrange the dominions of the great banking dynasty. In one word, the great object of the Rothschild congress was to reduce the five branches of the house who now rule Europe to four, and following the example of Garibaldi (hard to read, think that's the name), to strike another sovereign of Naples from the list of reigning monarchs. Henceforth there are to be but four kings of the house of Rothschild, with secure thrones at London, Paris, Vienna, and Frankfort. It is now exactly a hundred years since poor Jew, called Mayer Anselm made his appearance at the City of Hanover ; barefooted, with a sack on his shoulders, and the bundle of rags on his back. Successful in trade, like most of his co-religionists, he returned to Frankfort at the end of a few years, and set up a small shop in the "Jew-lane," over which hung the signboard of a red shield, called in German roth-schild. As a dealer in old and rare coins, he made the acquaintance of the Serene Elector of Hesse Cassel, who, happening to be in want of a confidential agent for various open and secret purposes, appointed the shrewd-looking Mayer Anselm to the post. The Serene Elector being compelled soon after to fly his country, Mayer Anselm took charge of his cash, amounting to several millions of florins. With the instinct of his race, Anselm did not forget to put the money out on a good interest, so that, before Napoleon was gone to Elba, and the illustrious Elector had returned to Cassel, the capital had more than doubled. The ruler of Hesse Cassel thought it almost a marvel to get his money safely returned from the Jew-lane of Frankfort, and at the Congress of Vienna was never tired of singing the praise of his Hebrew agent to all the Princes of Europe. The dwellers under the sign of the Red Shield laughed in the sleeves; keeping carefully to themselves the great fact that the electoral two millions florins had brought them four millions of their own. Never was honesty a better policy.

Mayer Anselm died in 1812, without having the supreme satisfaction of hearing his honesty extolled by kings and princes. He left five sons who succeded him in the banking and money-lending business, and who, conscious of their social value, dropped the name of Anselm, and adopted the higher sounding one of Rothschild, taken from the signboard over the paternal house. On his deathbed their father had taken a solemn oath from all of them, to hold his four millions well together, and they have faithfully kept the injunction. But the old City of Frankfort clearly was too narrow a realm for the fruitful sowing of four millions; and in consequence, the five were determined after a while to extend their sphere of operations by establishing branch banks at the chief cities of Europe. The eldest son, Anselm, born 1773, remained at Frankfort; the second, Salomon, born in 1774, settled at Vienna; the fourth, Charles, the infant terrible of the family, established himself in the soft climate of Naples, and the fifth and youngest, James, born 1792, took up his residence at Paris. Strictly united, the wealth and power of the five Rothschilds was vested in the eldest born; nevertheless, the shrewdest of the sons of Mayer Anselm, and the heir of his genius, Nathan, the third son, soon took the reins of government into his own hands. By his faith in Wellington and the flesh and muscle of British soldiers, he nearly doubled the fortune of the family, gaining more than a million sterling by the sole battle of Waterloo, the news of which he carried to England two days earlier than the mail. The weight of the solid millions gradually transferred the ascendancy in the family from Germany to England, making London the metropolis of the reigning dynasty of Rothschild. Like the royal families of Europe, the members of the house of Rothschild only intermarry with each other. James Rothschild married the daughter of his brother Salomon ; his son Edmond, heir apparent of the French line, was united to his first cousin, the daughter of Lionel, and grand dauther of Nathan Rothschild ; and Lionel again - M. P. for London - gave his hand in 1836 to his first cousin Charlotte, the daughter of Charles Rothschild, of Naples. It is unnecessary to say that, though these matrimonial alliances have kept the millions wonderfully together, they have not improved the race of old Mayer Anselm, of the Red Shield. Already signs of physical weakness are becoming visible in the great family. So, at least, hint the French papers in their meager notices about the Rothschild congress at Paris. From all that can be gathered out of a wilderness of canards, thin faces and thick fiction, it appears that the sovereigns of the Stock Exchange met in conference for the double purpose of centralizing their money power and widening their matrimonial realm. In other words, the five reigning kings, descendants, according to the law of primogeniture, of the five sons of Mayer Anselm, came to the decision to reduce their number to four by cutting off the Neapolitan branch of Charles Rothschild ; while it was likewise decided that permission should be given to the younger members of the family to marry, for the benefit of the race, beyond the range of the first cousinship. What has led to the exclusion of the Neapolitan line of Rothschild seems to have been the constant exercise of a highly blameable liberality, unheard of in the annals of the family, Charles, the prodigal son of Mayer Anselm, actually presented, in the year 1846, 10,000 ducats to the orphan asylum of St. Carlo, at Naples, and the son and heir of Charles (Gustavus) has given repeated signs of his inclination to follow in the footsteps of his father. Such conduct, utterly unbecoming of the policy of the house of Rothschild, could not be allowed to pass unnoticed, and, accordingly - we quote the rumor of Paris journalism - the decheance of the Neapolitan line has been pronounced. However, Baron Gustavus de Rothschild is not to retire into private life, like famous Charles V., with only a cassock on his shoulders and a prayer-book in his hand, but is allowed to take with him a small fortune of 150,000,000 francs, or about six million sterling - a mere crumb from the table of the descendants of poor Mayer Anselm, who wandered shoeless through the electorate of good King George III. It is certain that no romance of Royalty is equal to the romance of the house of Rothschild — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the shield, shouldn't the description be the other way round? Supporters Dexter: a lion rampant Or (Should be Sinister) Sinister: a unicorn Argent (Should be Dexter) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)