Talk:Archduke Sigismund, Grand Duke of Tuscany

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.


Sigismund uses the title of Grand Duke... I suggest that this article be titled Archduke Sigismund, Grand Duke of Tuscany. Also, his eldest son bears the title of Grand Prince of Tuscany --- a title used for the grand ducal heir. Charles 18:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked around and have confirmed that Sigismund does indeed use the grand ducal title. Charles 19:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Arembergs are French aristocrats with ties to Royalty, they settled in Uruguay in the 1940s and they have become the highest-ranking family in that country. I thought that that should be mentioned in this article, along with the fact that Sigismund and brother were raised there and they spent several months every year with their mother, Princess Laetitia. She is quite a character and something should be written about her.

Grand Duke of Tuscany[edit]

The title blatantly implies Sigismund rules Tuscany! Other pretenders, such as Louis (XX), duc d'Anjou, do not have sovereignties in their article titles. -- Jack1755 (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I don’t think it implies that he rules Tuscany if people did think that reading the article will show he does not. Heads of former ruling houses titles are given after there name as substantive titles (as is the case with every German princely head on Wikipedia), pretenders to kingdoms do not usually assume the title King. GD of Tuscany is just a title also Archduke of Habsburg is not a title its Archduke of Austria. - dwc lr (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know it's Archduke of Austria. How does the title not imply he rules Tuscany? Grand Duke of Tuscany is a sovereign title, not substantive; therefore, unlike Franz, Duke of Bavaria, et al, Sigismund's aritcle's title implies he rules. It must be moved. -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
To me the title implies he is head of the Grand Ducal House of Tuscany as Wittekind, Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont implies he is head of the Princely House of Waldeck and Pyrmont etc. He uses, and is referred to with the title Grand Duke of Tuscany. You can initiate a WP:RM if you like. - dwc lr (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand that German aristocratic titles are still recognised by the German government. I see no evidence that this title is recognised by the Italian government. He should be moved to Sigismund von Habsburg-Lothiringen or something similar. PatGallacher (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

He should be at Archduke Sigismund of Austria, like all the other non-reigning heads of the Tuscan branch of the family. john k (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Opposed, page not moved  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Archduke Sigismund, Grand Duke of TuscanySigismund von Habsburg-Lothringen — The Grand Duchy of Tuscany was abolished with the Italian Risorgimento. Austrian nobility was abolished in 1919. He is therefore not entitled to any titles. PatGallacher (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:NCROY there is no justification for removing titles all together, the grand ducal title possibly could be removed. Wikipedia is not subject to Austrian law and members of the Habsburg family still use and are titled Archdukes of Austria etc as a courtesy. At any rate Austria abolished "von" as well. - dwc lr (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per what dwc lr says is correct. I don't think the Tuscan title should be included, but Archduke Sigismund of Austria is already taken, so I'm not sure where the article should go. Sigismund von Habsburg-Lothringen is bad form, though. john k (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I believe the Tuscan branch all used to be titled “Archduke Name of Austria, Prince of Tuscany” on Wikipedia but they have since been moved to remove the princely title, but that is a possibility for this article due to Archduke Sigismund of Austria being taken. - dwc lr (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's actually used, being accorded to his grandfather, father and him in Nicolas Enache's well-regarded La Descendance de Marie-Therese de Habsburg, ICC Paris 1996, p.121, ISBN 2-908003-04, where he is "Sigismund archiduc d'Autriche, Prince de Toscane". But I don't have to hand an equivalent English-language source (nor do I think one's needed: it's a red herring. As you've noted, Continental titleholders, no matter how notable, are often little-mentioned in reputable English media except in specialty sources on royalty or genealogy -- and often not there if their dynasty isn't particularly Britain-associated). So trying to find "most commonly used" name for them in English will invite allegations that they lack the notability to be included in English Wiki (although popularity-in-English isn't supposed to be a criterion), that their article name is being "skewed" by reliance on "monarchist" sources, and therefore the only "objective" test is English-language google counts. Damned if we do, damned if we don't). FactStraight (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, he is not prevalently known as "von Habsburg-Lothringen" (why that rather than di Habsburgo-Lorena, anyway?). As the head of a dynastic family, he is as entitled to the title of pretence most widely used for him, as is accorded to other pretenders. However, he should definitely not be accorded the title of Grand Duke which, in this case, is a title indicating sovereignty that has historically not been borne and traditionally is not accorded to a pretender who has never reigned de facto. Sigismund and his father Archduke Leopold were given unfortunate advice on this point (as later when Sigismund married, having succeeded his father -- who voluntarily "abdicated" upon divorcing a French noblewoman in 1994, his son's mother, and re-marrying a commoner -- by the same prominent royalist who advised his father that his now wife, Elyssa Edmonstone, is a member of the Scottish "nobility" {although she is undisputably of the landed gentry and IMO the head of the Tuscan branch was within his rights to accept her non-peerage family's unusually high, historical station as sufficient to authorize the marriage -- nonetheless she and her ancestors were never legally noble}. Nor has "Grand Duke" heretofore been used as a title of pretence, precisely because it is associated with actual exercise of sovereignty, past or present, like "king", "empress" and "crown prince". (Grand Duke as used here conveys a different rank than the same term when used for dynasts of the Russian imperial family: English and Romance languages (French, Italian, Spanish) happen to use the same term for Russian imperial dynasts and for rulers of continental grandduchies. This is not the case in Russian, German, and Scandinavian languages, which use two words for these two different ranks among royalty. Romanovs held the title veliky knyaz {in German, Grossfurst) as children and agnatic grandchildren of an emperor, which is literally "Grand Prince" but in English is historically translated "Grand Duke" (that's by decision of Catherine the Great, who was tri-lingual in German, French and Russian, so she fully understood the translation nuances, but still preferred that her court at St. Petersburg call her son and his children le grand duc/ la grande duchesse). Because used to translate the rulers of, e.g. Tuscany, Hesse and by Rhine and, today, Luxembourg, it is not an acceptable title for a non-ruler. I would support a move to the same title as has historically been borne by heads of the Tuscan dynasty since they lost Tuscany in 1860, i.e., Archduke Sigismund of Austria -- or perhaps Archduke Sigismund, Prince of Tuscany. But the first order of business is to vote down this move, which is atypical of his non-reigning ancestors. FactStraight (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • You seem to have some specific knowledge on this subject, FactStraight; are there any sources you can point us to on the subject? john k (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I had a conversation a few years ago with David McIntosh, who lives in Scotland and is the author of "The Unknown Habsburgs", a book about this Tuscan branch of the dynasty. The background on Sigismund's father, marriage and assumption of the grand ducal title is, however, also known to others in this discussion who have tracked matters royal over the years. The royalist who advocates for Sigismund's use of the grandducal title maintains, if I recall correctly, a rationale similar to that in the Bourbon-Parma case, but which I think illustrates the very opposite. He maintains that the Tuscan grand ducal title is, either originally or by confirmation, a papal title and is therefore still legally borne. I have no particular reason to doubt the accuracy of that contention, but I challenge its relevance: the custom and journalistic practice which upholds the right of an heir de jure to a princely or ducal crown to use the title even after the family has long ago lost the throne de facto stops short of recognizing such titles above the rank of duke -- precisely because use of a higher title would imply actual exercise, past or present, of sovereignty. The attribution to the late Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma and now to his son Carlos of the title their ancestors held as reigning dukes complies with this norm, not expecting Wikipedia to accord them a title not recognized by society, serious journalists and reputable publications in general. Sigismund's title, like that of "King" Leka of Albania, however, goes beyond that standard, and should not be validated by Wikipedia. FactStraight (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
        • This makes sense. Thinking of no longer existing grand duchies in general, Archduke Joseph Ferdinand, who was head of house while the Habsburg monarchy still existed, did not use "grand duke of Tuscany" so far as I'm aware. After Friedrich II's death, the heads of the grand ducal house of Baden used "prince of Baden" or "margrave of Baden"; the heads of the house of Hesse-Darmstadt used "Hereditary Grand Duke" and "Prince" (And their Hesse-Kassel heirs use "Landgrave"); Mecklenburg-Schwerin used "hereditary grand duke"; Saxe-Weimar used hereditary grand duke and prince; Oldenburg "Hereditary Grand Duke" and "Duke". john k (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
        • It's not a matter or whether the title "Grand Duke of Tuscany" is legally borne by Sigismund or not. Wikipedia is not here to "validate" legal use of titles. It is purely of matter of what a person is commonly known as. Charlie Sheen is not the legal name of the brother of Emilio Estevez, but it is how he is commonly known. In Sigismund's case, he is more commonly known (like his father and grandfather) as "Archduke Sigismund of Austria" (without any reference to Tuscany either as grand duke or prince). Noel S McFerran (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Off the top of my head (I realize that legitimists are apt to have thought these issues through more thoroughly than others of us), I'm not sure I agree with so absolute a rule. I'd have a hard time agreeing that Wikipedia should ever have listed Anna Anderson at Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia, Leka of Albania as "King", and Hilda Toledano as Duchess of Braganza even during periods when they managed to get acolytes and media to refer to them as such. FactStraight (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am not convinced that there is clear evidence that the current title is the most appropriate. But I am certainly convinced that "Sigismund von Habsburg-Lothringen" is not the most common way this individual is referred to. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.