Talk:House of Hohenzollern
|Pretenders to the German throne was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 30 September 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into House of Hohenzollern. The original page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 3 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|Text and/or other creative content from Pretenders to the German throne was copied or moved into House of Hohenzollern. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Pretenders to the German throne.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Aren't the rulers of Liechtenstein still Hohenzollerns? --corvus13
I do "you" -- the family name of the rulers of Liechtenstein is "Liechtenstein". They've been around for ages -- since the 12th century, I think -- mostly because of their impressive ability to look completely inoffensive when necessary. Kind of like a hedgehog. -- Paul Drye
Hi H.J. --
I think that we should follow the conventions on the discussion page for historical names? Since many, if not most, English speakers aren't as familiar with German history before the end of hte Weimar Republic, I think it would be best to put the name and "of Place", like Albert (or Albrecht) Achilles of Brandenburg, or Friedrich Wilhelm II of Prussia (or Frederick William -- it's hard to say, because more recent sources use the German names, but 50 years ago, they used English -- on the other hand, Karl der Grosse is ALWAYS Charlemagne, and Louis the Pious is never Ludwig the Pious or der Fromme!). Let's see what the others have to say, and maybe look at each one individually -- because there will always be exceptions, like Frederick the Great (well-known in English). JHK
William and Wilhelm
Um... what's the difference between Frederick William I and Friederich Wilhelm I? JHK
JHK, you can see how difficult it is to tell them apart. I just added Der Grosse Kurfuerst to the first one. Please read the titles and about the patent, permit for building. This is what I have written about earlier to MT and you. That was followed all the time, no city or coin or anything was done without a permit. Therefore I believe that if a city and surrounding area write it on record (coins etc) that they were a civitas , they were a Freie Stadt or city state. Otherwise they would not have used it. If they had tried the imperial forces would habe gone after them. user:H.J.
- Hi -- I did read them. I've been trying to explain that what you believe to be true is not in fact the case. It could be, but there is no clear way of telling. They could be calling themselves civitas in the sense of "the government and the people". There is no way of telling from one word what was meant (for certain). Also, you assume that nothing was done without a permit -- this is patently untrue. Nothing was supposed to be done without an Imerial license -- But the HRE had no standing army, no unified court system, no unified tax system -- in fact no real central administration! From before Charles IV issued the Golden Bull, and especially aftrwards, the Imperial government was only as powerful as the people who supported it -- and in the case of a great trade city like Hamburg, the license process may have been more along the lines of "We Minted this coin, Mr. Emperor. We're using it. How much do we owe you for the license?" You have to remember that the Emperor had very little authority -- just prestige. In some cases, the Emperor was strong -- but only because he happened to be an Emperor with lots of family lands, money, and his own army attached to family lands and money -- not because of an Imperial tie! JHK
- HJ, as JHK is pointing out you are making a basic mistake of people dealing with legal history. Whenever we look at laws as a source of history, we have to ask "did they pass a law against because SO MANY people were doing it?" For instance, there are laws against speeding, murder, tax evasion - all those are common (sort of). There are also laws that are statements of ideals that have very little to do with COMMON human behavior. There are laws against terrorism, which is, thankfully, not as common as speeding. However, both of them have laws against them. Cities sometimes came to exist without legal standing - and then there were decades (literally!) of lawsuits about their standing. --MichaelTinkler
(or sons) made no grammatical sense where it was so I removed it. Some one else removed the list of titles under Friedrich Wilhelm I so I removed the pointer to it. --rmhermen
Hoax driven vandalism
Since at least August 2014, on several articles related to members of the Prussian House of Hohenzollern, including this one, socks and anons have repeatedly inserted edits containing false information based on this hoax, posted on Prince August Wilhelm of Prussia on 5 August 2014 at 17:58: "1944 Prince August Wilhelm married for the second time with russian Princess Catherine of Drutsk (the Rurik dynasty). They had a son, and they named him Alexander Friedrich (Prince Alexander Friedrich of Prussia (1945—2009))...Prince Alexander Friedrich of Prussia (1945—2009). He also, in turn, married and had two children (Prince Alexander( Alexander Ludwig Eugen Adalbert Ferdinand Günter Eitel Christian Viktor Prinz von Preussen) and Prince Heinrich (Mithras Theoderich Karl Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm Albrecht Lorenz August Prinz von Preussen))." This fairy tale gets embellished with online citations, etc. as it is deleted and re-added to articles. Apparently the perpetrator believes that he or she is a descendant of Hohenzollern royalty and wants people who read English Wikipedia to believe it too. Beware. FactStraight (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Adolf Hitler, political historian
I wonder what Malaysia Kuala Lumpur Tmnet customer 18.104.22.168 had in mind when they added a paragraph that was sourced to "Adolf Hitler's Second (secret) Book, chapter 14 / page 76"; and what Qwest Communications customer 22.214.171.124 had in mind when, with the edit summary "No consensus", they reverted User:Yopie's removal of this paragraph.
- Is "Adolf Hitler's Second (secret) Book" the same as Zweites Buch? If it is, why not adjust the reinstated paragraph accordingly? If it isn't, then what is it?
- Whatever "Adolf Hitler's Second (secret) Book" is, is it written by Adolf Hitler?
- If it's not written by Adolf Hitler, then who's it by?
- If it is by Adolf Hitler, then are you implying that Adolf Hitler is a reliable source for this kind of matter?
- Is any deletion that does not follow agreement in a talk page discussion rightly reversed on the grounds of "No consensus", or is this material not routine but instead unusually valuable?