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 118.250.234.221 (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. 171.159.194.10 (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": http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ne0gAQAAIAAJ&q=%22the+richest+and+most+powerful+family+in+the+world.%22&dq=%22the+richest+and+most+powerful+family+in+the+world.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=y4l0T7Rw4pzQBfrPxOoP&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCA

How rich are they compared to the Walton family? --95.34.150.242 (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Mendicants compared to the Waltons.117.194.229.15 (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy[edit]

This article caters to conspiracy theorist, and has way to much unless and non factual information in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.36.3 (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.99.195.110.214 (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.99.195.110.214 (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).99.195.110.214 (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.99.195.110.214 (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)

Freemasonry[edit]

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.72.161.238.14 (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)