Talk:Austrian nobility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (marked as High-importance).

Older talk material[edit]

can anyone help with the update of what the family-names are today? just dropping the "von" is not enough, some had to completely refashion their names... thanks.

Prepositions and listings of names[edit]

Carrying on from conversation between Gryffindor and myself, I maintain that prepositions can be carefully analysed and translated into English in order to give readers an idea as to the meaning of the title. However, that is not the case now as I am fine with having the prepositions present between the first and subsequent names within a noble title. disagreement exists on translations of titles prefixed with reichs- ... I maintain that it is implied to meaning "of the (Holy Roman) Empire", not "imperial <title>". I think that this deserves explaination within the article itself. Nominally, discussions of prepositions at this time are simply between Gryffindor and me, but if it is to impact the article, others ought to discuss it as well. One thing that needs to be resolved is the disagreement over edler/edle, which, is listed as a title but is really only a style of sorts with yet another style of address. Ritter was brought up, but it is never said as knight as it constitutes an awkward sort of component of a name. French titles utilizing "des" were also brought up, but this is about Austrian nobility, not French. A title such as Marquis des Baux is Marquis of Baux as the plural "Baux" needn't be introduced with "the". Some German names using "zur" and "von der" follow this note. I, myself, think that it would be better to list the families, as is, on a seperate page. Thanks. Charles 20:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I respectfully dissent. I have proven many sources where translations do not occur, unfortunately you so far have not pointed anything out to me that would convince me or other users about using English. de = von, which was also used in Austria-Hungary (and all the rest of "von und zu", "zu" "vom und zum", etc etc). As User:John Kenney pointed out, translation cannot work, it sounds very strange and is wrong. I understand what you are trying to say, however we are obliged to stay true to original information. Trying to translate "auf Teufel komm raus" will not work. We can use a translation for a title like "Archduke of Austria", who was a "ruler", but not for "normal" noble persons like "Edler von Mises" or "Ritter von Ghega", even a case like "Kinsky von Wichnitz und Tettau" is not translatable, or it would have to be "Charles of Gaulle" as well. sorry, that just won't work... I understand what you are trying to say, but please just trust me and other users on this. Gryffindor 15:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The difference between Charles de Gaulle and the Princes/Counts Kinksy is that Charles de Gualle has no title... Just a surname. The Kinskys have/had titles, therefore are in English Princes/Counts Kinsky of Wichnitz and Tettau. Edler and Ritter strictly aren't titles therefore needn't have the prepositions translated. I must stress that. Charles 01:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not quite, I think, that the German titles are untranslatable. What is true, though, is that one generally doesn't translate them. One could do so, and some titles may occasionally be translated. But as a general rule, it's more common just to leave them as is. john k 16:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
There is also the additional complication of the "von"s and the "zu" or "zur" or "von der" having officially become part of the family's last names. As we do not nor should translate proper names, these words, when part of a last name should not be translated. Indeed, they should be respected in translation, otherwise logic would dictate that we translate the English "Millers" and use their German version name, "Müller", in a German article. Bottom line is, names should not be translated and these "von"s etc are part of their last names by law (at least in Germany). --Mmounties 16:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
When I was talking of translation, the actual name isn't translated unless it is a territory with an English equivalent. Von, zur, etc aren't part of legal Austrian surnames... German law has no bearning on the content of this article. Charles 01:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

My take on this: Nobility has been abolished. Legally, Austrian citizens don't have "titles" anymore, but are much rather called Anselm Graf zu Eltz, with Graf zu Eltz being the surname. The surname should not be translated. Finito. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 20:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The "surname" of that person would simply be Eltz if he were an Austrian citizen. Charles 01:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid that's not the case. Due to some legal flaw, he was able to maintain his name as Graf zu Eltz in Austrian. Trust me, I am Austrian and went to school with that guy. ;) It's true, however, that the two or three other former nobles in my grade only had "regular" surnames without von or zu. —Nightstallion (?) 08:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
You can cite him as an example to be used for everyone then. Charles 13:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't really care about what the situation of today is. I think we can agree, that the names are kept in German, as well as the prepositions added with the "de" if applies, as was in the original article. Former family names as well as current ones are shown. Also this "Edle Herren" and "Frauen" needs to go, it is incorrect. Gryffindor 16:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe the entire Edle Herren category should go then as it isn't even really a title. Charles 19:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I mean it should be renamed to the original and correct "Edler" and "Edle" of course, as it was still a title.. Gryffindor 20:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Charles, do you realize you're arguing here with two Austrians? (never mind the bunch of others that chimed in as well) Do you notice that you're trying to tell Austrians how things are done in Austria? Do you really think you know it better than they do? Perhaps, you might be willing to consider the possibility that their take on most things Austrian, it being their neck of the woods, is a little more accurate than your take from the distance, especially in every day matters such as last names. Why don't you give Gryffindor a break and move on? There are plenty of articles that need a discussion a lot more than this one. --Mmounties 20:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I will use my time to discuss articles however I see fit. If think I ought to be doing something else, don't read what I write. Just because they are Austrians doesn't mean they know more than anyone who is familiar with the Austrian nobility as a past-time and as a profession. The latter, I know people in that circle. I am the one who needs to be given a break. Let Gryffindor speak for Gryffindor. Gryffindor was gracious enough to lend an ear and an opinion over issues that matter. I am not arguing, I am asserting the information I know. Charles 22:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
No need to get rude. Of course you can spend your time as you see fit. I'm just suggesting that it may be a good idea to take a step back at this time. --Mmounties 22:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright alright, peace peace, let's not fight about this. I think we have all stated our viewpoints, so again let's move on. I will make the changes now that we have agreed upon, and hopefully this should settle any issues. Gryffindor 13:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Name listings, again[edit]

Would it be possible to put the names into tables as to avoid the issue of all the brackets? I propose a title under each rank of the nobility with a column for Pre-1919 names, Names under the Republic and Notes (family is extinct, also had comital status, etc. Does that sound good? Charles 16:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to hear the opinion of other users first. If the table is a marked improvement though, I wouldn't object. If you wanna make a table, could you show what kind? Either on a sandbox or here? Gryffindor 13:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
That is the problem, I must learn it first and be comfortable in producing one without errors. I've seen tables throughout Wikipedia and I can pick one out as an example. Charles 15:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


It appears that all Austrian subjects with titles were required to stop using them in 1919. Could editors of this article check to see if this edit of mine[1] to Ludwig von Mises is correct? I state that he was born with a title but was required to drop it. I presume he decided to revert to using his noble preposition when he emigrated to the United States. -Will Beback 00:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Since he did, indeed move to the US and the institute and everything uses the von, I think it should be reverted. Charles 00:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Why? Did he get his nobility back? He was a citizen of Austria when the law abolished nobility. Note that I didn't change the name of the article, only the proper name of the individual. Should Hayek be renamed back to "von Hayek"? -Will Beback 01:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
You're just splitting hairs now. Dig up some of the documentation relating to Mr von Mises' surname at the time of his death. You may or may not have a case then. Charles 01:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
If he started using the titles again we can add that to the article. But it is not disputed that the Austrian nobility and their titles were abolished, right? And there is no reason to think that those laws did not apply to Mises, right? At the time of his death he was not an "Edler", because that title ceased to exist in 1919, right? He may have called himself one, just as people assume or retain all sorts of titles of nobility that are no longer active. -Will Beback 01:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The onus is on you to prove such things. There are many, many cases of titles as surnames, even for Austrians abroad, where the laws don't apply to them. Charles 01:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The proof is in our own articles, which say that the terms were aboloshed in 1919, and which say that Mises lived in Austria at the time. I dsn't see what else is necessary to prove. -Will Beback 01:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia really isn't proof of anything. You do not know the name by which Mises was documented outside of Austria. Charles 01:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Which do you doubt- that Mises lived in Austria in 1919, or that the nobility was abolished in that year? There is ample external proof for both. -Will Beback 01:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
You can't say Ludwig Heinrich Mises is his legal name as the be-all/end-all because he didn't live in the Austria for his entire life and his entire legacy has him has Ludwig von Mises. Charles 01:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you say that "Edler" is part of his legal name, when that title didn't even exist anymore, and U.S. citizens do not carry titles? -Will Beback 01:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
You also took out the von. American citizens can use von in a surname and even use a title in a surname. What happens if someone with the surname Graf von X moves to the United States? Does he cease to have that surname? Since Mises moved to the US and at least took up the von again (and if not before elsewhere in Europe), what rationale do you have for removing it? Can you say for certain that in every single European country that he lived in, save Austria, that he was merely Mises and not von Mises or Edler von Mises? Charles 02:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
If he added it back then we should also indicate that fact. Do you have any source indicating that he did so? Of course, in the U.S. people can call themselves "King" or "Christ" if they want to (though doing so does not mean that they fuflill those names as titles). People have routinely changed their names when emmigrating to the U.S. As for his right to use the preposition, he had none. It was granted by the state and removed by the state. So, if he re-adopted the title (without authorization or right) then we should indicate that too. What we do know for sure is that while he was an Austrian citizen the "von" and "Edler" were dropped from his name, by law. -Will Beback 02:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm reverting it back to Ludwig von Mises for the moment, sans the Edler. The right to use a preposition outside of Austria is not Austria's business. I said nothing about readopting a title. Charles 02:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
In this case, use the name that he was most commonly known under. If his institute etc. uses the "von Mises", then so shall be it. See also Herbert von Karajan for further reference. Adminttedly the usage of "von" in Austrian names after 1919 on Wikipedia is not too clear yet, however I see no problems with using the most common name in that case, which is codified as a rule as well. Gryffindor 12:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
That is the rule for article titles, but how we name the individual within the article is another matter. However the edit that Charles made is fair enough. Thanks for everyone's input. Cheers, -Will Beback 21:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Copy-edit tag[edit]

I've gone through the article and done some copy-editing, but I'm not sure if it's enough to remove the tag. If someone more familiar with the subject could possibly go through and check if the article deserves the tag removed, that would be great. Barring that, I'd be happy to make another run-through, but I felt like I couldn't change things I had no knowledge of. —Keakealani Poke Mecontribs 22:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Long lists of names[edit]

What is the thinking behind the long lists of names? This article has been tagged to deal with the list, and a request has been made to put the names into a table, but I am unclear of the point of the lists, tabled or otherwise. If there is a rationale that could be explained, perhaps the lists could be transferred into (a) separate list article(s). SilkTork 11:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The lists already do exist in tables in separate List articles. I have linked to one example: List of princes of Austria-Hungary. What would be the objection to removing the lists from this article and linking to the existing tabled articles? SilkTork 11:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

None here. They should be removed, it is inexhaustive, but long and cumbersome. We do not maintain such lists for any other nobility, as far as I know. Charles 14:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Lists are a completely normal thing on Wikipedia, therefore it should remain, since it has an educative purpose. However it should become alphabetic and more structured, I do agree on that one. Gryffindor 08:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with Keep, as will be of great interest etymologically and geneologically both for family members, but as well to general students of history. A good resource! Suggest 'table' should be quasi-tablized as compromise using one of the multiple columns templates. {{top}}, {{mid}}, and {{col-end}}/{{bottom}}, iirc will do two columns, but three or four maybe better (See {{columns-start}}, {{column}}, and {{columns-end}}) considering short nature of the data. The help for those templates will give the how-to, if someone has time to play at formatting tests. (Images and locations are main complications) // FrankB 18:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the three tags that asked for "list into sortable table". The list is a single colujmn already alphabetical. What else is there to sort? Also, I've put the longer lists into 3 columns. -DePiep (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Margraviates in 1914[edit]

At the beginning of the 20th Century, Austria-Hungary included two Margraviates (Istria and Moravia), yet there don't seem to be any Margraves on the list. Were the thrones of those lands filled by a Hapsburg, or someone not on the list, or ...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris B (talkcontribs) 10:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Both margraviates were held by Emperor. Yopie 14:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talkcontribs)


What is the evidence that holders of this title were considered to be Austrian nobles? --Poko (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Surname links[edit]

There are arbitrary and erroneous links to surnames and words which somebody claims were noble Austrian families, e.g. Bonda, Krane, Marzani. If the link does not identify a family that is notable for having been noble in Austria, there should be no link. FactStraight (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)