Talk:Karl von Habsburg

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

Spelling of Hapsburg/Habsburg[edit]

As shown by the New York Times Style Manual and other sources, the proper spelling, in the English language, is Hapsburg. In fact, when I try to spell it as Habsburg in this talk box, I get a red underline, indicating that it is misspelled. How it is spelled in German has no bearing on how it should be rendered in English. We refer to Wien as Vienna. Also, we translate "Karl" into "Charles," so we should also adhere to standard English usage and spell "Hapsburg" correctly.John Paul Parks (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

John Paul Parks, I'm aware of the fact that in English the spelling with p instead of b sometimes occurred, but that is basically an anachronism nowadays. I've read many book in English about the subject of European dynasties and the spelling with b is prevalent in most if not all of them. I'm also not sure who made the NYT the god of the English language in matters like this. In this particular matter it's perfectly understandable why b became more prevalent in English than p. Every homologous word in English for the German word "burg" begins with the letter b. I agree with you about "Wien" being "Vienna" in English. About the names of these people.... Translating given names for monarchs has been prevalent in the past. On Wikipedia and in most other venues, translated names are still used for historical figures, but not for recent monarchs and indeed certainly not for other people originating in the 20th century or beyond. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. A modern example of translating names is the Pope. On his website, he is Francis in English, Francesco in Italian, Francois in French, Francisco in Spanish and Portuguese, and Franziskus in German, and everyone seems to know who we are talking about! I do not disagree with you about "burg." That is spelled the same in English and German. It is the first part of the word that is at issue.John Paul Parks (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you will also find that the hesitancy to translate names is generally confined to English-speaking lands which, for some reason, have become infected with political correctness and apparently are embarrassed to use their own language or to admit that it has equal value to any other. For example, in Spanish-speaking lands, you will find that a woman named "Isabel" is the Queen of a country called "Inglaterra," and that her capital is in a place called "Londres." If you do not believe me, check out the article, "Inglaterra" on the Spanish version of Wikipedia.John Paul Parks (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Whatever may be the origin of the custom (and I suspect that because English has become the world's lingua franca that its receptivity to foreignisms reflects an adaptability that keeps it thus), it is now generally the case that names of foreign royalty are no longer translated into their nearest English equivalent as was commonly done until World War I and, in some cases, subsequently. While I much prefer the majestic "King Baldwin" to "Baudouin", the traditional "King Charles XVI Gustavus" to "Carl XVI Gustaf" and "Louis Gaston d'Orléans, Prince of Braganza" to the tongue-twisting, "Luiz Gastão", gone, alas, are the days when Anglicization is seen as an appropriate appropriation in royal nomenclature. We may be wistful in the face of that turn of affairs, but resistance is likely to be perceived as petulant -- and to be responded to as if provocative. FactStraight (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't know much about Spanish, but in Dutch and German it's much the same as in English. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


How come UNPO elected him although he from none of its members? De mortuis... 15:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is old information. He is no longer the Director General.
I corrected the article to say he was appointed in 2002, I'd love to see some mention of his term, such as "he served until 20XX", but I can't see to find anything with the date he was replaced or a mention of his successor. I also noted that this position is separate from the "Secretary-General" which seems to be the actual head of the UNPO. Jztinfinity (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Karl Habsburg - Lothringen is very good men. I would love to work for him. Tomas

Unless you have, and until you do, you will never really know.John Paul Parks (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The stuff about "political career" doesn't belong here - it's about his father Otto! I'm moving it. --dllu 17:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Archduke? Prince?[edit]

Karl is not Archduke of Austria. Firstly, Austrian nobility was abolished in 1919, secondly the Habsburg family has relinquished its claims to all titles somewhen in the 60ies. Why would Wikipedia list him as "Archduke"? (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That's right and regards all other countries as well. It is clearly POV to write this article using these titles claimed by some members of the family. Balanced article cannot use them as facts.
Furthermore, the family is clearly prohibited to use these titles as they live in Austria and are Austrian citizens. Is there any source funding that they use the titles?
--peyerk (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
This is the text of the law abolishing any noble titles in Austria:
The article already contains (see the "Notes" section) a statement about Austria's law on the use of titles in Austria. Their use in the lede is relevant because the titles summarize and represent much of why he and his family members are notable. That usage in the info box is now annotated with several sources which document his traditional titles (see #1 in the "References" section). FactStraight (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it not true that noble titles, although not recognized by the Austrian government (they wouldn't appear on a drivers permit or passport) are used socially. Though his legal name may be Karl Habsburg his personal stationary could be imprinted "Karl von Habsburg". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:11, 1 November 2009

Maybe so. But this is not a private stationary shop, is it? --peyerk (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
If it were, it would be a "stationery" shop.John Paul Parks (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Act IV. of 1947. §3 explicitly FORBIDS using any noble titles in Hungary. So ALL the articles related to Hungary and titles is to be revised! --peyerk (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This is simply false. There have been a number of court cases after people were fined for using titles of nobility on business cards or stationary, or signing with them. Some of these people argued that it wasn't proper titles of nobility because they had acquired them abroad, through adoption, but the courts decided that they were proper enough to fall under the law. Apparently there was a time when Austrian newspapers circumvented the law by writing von in parentheses, but that does not seem to be the case nowadays. (At the time, apparently some people jokingly wrote things like Walther (von der) Vogelweide. See [1]. I am not related to the website, by the way.) Hans Adler 13:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
What is "simply false"?!? I wrote about Hungary, the Act IV. of 1947. which has recently been confirmed by the National Assembly (Parliament) and by the Constitutional Court as well. Stop ignoring these simple facts! --peyerk (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I think Hans is replying to the IP not to you. DrKiernan (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Apparently yes, thank you for clarifying anon contrib. --peyerk (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


Charles isn't reigning as Head of his House. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2011 (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: Page moved to "Karl von Habsburg." This seems to be a title everyone can live with; the only objection to it was a concern over whether the subject is the primary topic. However, given "Karl von Habsburg" and "Karl Habsburg" already redirected here, I don't think additional disambiguation such as "(born 1961)" is ultimately necessary. At least, not on the English wiki. The epic scale of the debate below is, from an outside perspective, a good indicator of the subject's primacy. -- Hadal (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Archduke Karl of AustriaKarl Habsburg-Lothringen – Currently at the wrong name. The "Archduke Karl of Austria" showing up in gbook and gscholar searches is another person, long dead. This particular man is called "Karl Habsburg-Lothringen" [2][3][4] DrKiernan (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


  • Support, uncontroversial, should be done speedily.--Kotniski (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. He is an Austrian citizen and possibly also a German and Swiss citizen. He lives in Austria. As an Austrian citizen his legal name is definitely "Karl Habsburg-Lothringen", and if he ever used something like the article title he would probably be fined 190 Euros for breaking the law (with constitutional status) that abolishes nobility, and might provoke a small constitutional crisis when the authorities try to figure out what the correct penalty is for breaking another part of the constitution that specifically forbids the use of these Habsburg titles.
    As he is generally known as "Karl Habsburg-Lothringen", especially as a member of the European Parliament (for constitutional reasons he is currently ineligible within Austria), that seems to be the logical title per WP:COMMONNAME. See also de:Karl Habsburg-Lothringen, where the word Erzherzog (archduke) only appears in connection with some of his ancestors.
    I explained these things at WT:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Archduke Karl of Austria, but proposed going through RM because some people are in love with such titles and so I anticipate some opposition. Hans Adler 11:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
    As this discussion has become hard to parse, here is my current rationale: (1) The article must be renamed because Karl Habsburg-Lothringen's ancestry is full of men who are routinely referred to as "Archduke Karl of Austria" and who are more notable than he is. They fought wars, supported scientists, have statues in Vienna etc. (2) Reliable sources in German almost exclusively refer to him as "Karl Habsburg-Lothringen", and he himself seems to always use "[Cpt.] Karl Habsburg-Lothringen". Reliable sources in English are divided between "Karl Habsburg-Lothringen" and "Karl von Habsburg". I found only three reliable sources in English that use the anachronistic title "Archduke of Austria": A book for royal fanciers, a conspiracy theory book with a swastika on the title page, and one book on literature. This is a tiny minority. Hans Adler 08:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as that is his actual name. The Austrian monarchy was abolished in 1919 & so he was 'never' an archduke. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per naming conventions (WP:NCROY) and I am also not convinced this is his most common name. He is also commonly known as “Karl von Habsburg”, his wife and father are at “von Habsburg”, that would be a more logical move. [5][6][7] He is even “Archduke/Erzherzog Karl von Habsburg”, so the title is not completely redundant.[8][9][10][11][12][13] - dwc lr (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
What part of WP:NCROY do you think tells us to use this title? --Kotniski (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:NCROY#Other royals. - dwc lr (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that was ever intended to apply to members of deposed royal families. More pertinent would be the "Other cases" section of WP:NCROY, which tells us to "follow English usage" in cases like this - and there seems to be no English usage for "Archduke Karl of Austria" with respect to this person. The only question should be what title to move the article to - either of the suggestions made so far would be better than the present title. --Kotniski (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
It is intended to apply, Princess Irene of Greece is from a deposed dynasty and is listed as an example. If it has to be moved it would have to be to a ‘common name’, but I’m not sure there is a obvious common name, Karl von Habsburg, Archduke Karl von Habsburg, Karl Habsburg-Lothringen are all used. The current title is not inaccurate, I don’t think a move away from WP:NCROY is essential. The introduction could say something like Archduke Karl of Austria, also known as Karl von Habsburg or Karl Habsburg-Lothering in Austria where titles are illegal. - dwc lr (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the problem here, if there is one, is with the wording of WP:NCROY rather than the proposal to move this article. (Princess Irene of Greece's article isn't even at that title - I've just corrected it at NCROY.) It certainly isn't Wikipedia's normal practice to assign titles of pretence against usage.--Kotniski (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The title Archduke is used, so that is not a problem. The problem is it’s often the combination ‘Archduke von Habsburg’ that’s used, which is technically incorrect as the correct title is Archduke of Austria . So Archduke (title) and ‘von Habsburg’ (surname). And according to WP:NCROY “Do not use surnames in article titles for such persons.” So really neither “von Habsburg” or “Habsburg-Lothringen” should be used, I don’t see how this move could go through, the naming conventions are clear. ‘Archduke Karl of Austria’ is the correct title. Why should this be an exception to the rule. - dwc lr (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't put too much faith in the "rules" as you find them written - they aren't worded perfectly for every possible circumstance. How we deal with claimants to non-functional titles is made clear in the "Other cases" section of the guideline - "Follow English usage". The current title of this article is, as the nominator says, simply wrong - the title phrase commonly refers to someone else (to whose article this title ought to redirect), and this person is apparently never referred to by that phrase (though he should still probably be added to the Archduke Charles dab page).--Kotniski (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I just added some refs for Archduke Karl of Austria. Perhaps Archduke Karl of Austria (b 1961) would be better. The 'rules' are written clearly, use "{title} {name} of {country}", there is no distinction between reigning and non reigning. - dwc lr (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be only reading the part of the rules that you want to see. The rules about claimants to titles which have been suppressed, which is the situation we're dealing with here, are even more clear - the present title doesn't hold water unless English usage supports it (and the obscurity of the references you claim to have found would indicate that that isn't the case here). --Kotniski (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
There is no distinction made between reigning and former reigning families. WP:NCROY#Sovereigns (6) “Do not apply an ordinal in an article title for a pretender, i.e., someone who has not reigned. For example, use Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, not Louis XX, for the legitimist pretender to the French throne. Such a person may however be referred to by a title, for example, Victor Emmanuel, Prince of Naples” (please note it does *not* say, use ‘Louis Alphonse de Bourbon’ or ‘Victor Emmanuel di Savoia’, it explicitly says it is ok to use a title) This RM is wrong pure and simple, and not in accordance with naming conventions. - dwc lr (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
"May" doesn't mean "must", or even "should". Please read the bit of the guideline that explicitly and intentionally deals with the situation we have here.--Kotniski (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes it clearly just reaffirms what I have been saying. For claimants to titles which have been suppressed, as with the Dukes of Bavaria, follow English usage, which tends to accept pretences to titles and reject pretences to thrones; thus our article title is Henry, Count of Chambord, not Henry V of France (a redirect), nor Henry Bourbon, which should be a dab page. So applying this we have Archduke Karl of Austria, not Karl II of Austria, nor Karl Habsburg-Lothringen. The conventions are clear I will be amazed if this is moved. If it is, it will be a pure POV issue as the RM goes against naming conventions time and time again. - dwc lr (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
This is rather bizarre reasoning - we're supposed to believe what a guideline tells us about what English usage tends to be (in general), rather than look at evidence about what the usage actually is in this particular case?--Kotniski (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I hope the above supports will reconsider their stance in light of wikipedia naming conventions WP:NCROY, formulated by consensus which explicitly support the current title and a NPOV, and not vote purely on own POV’s. WP:NCROY# Sovereigns (point 6), WP:NCROY#Other royals (point 2) and WP:NCROY#Other cases (point 1). - dwc lr (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
    The claim that a living person is a "pretender" to an abolished throne is of course a BLP claim. From my reading of the article Pretender, to be a pretender it is not enough to be in line for fictional honour, but one must also actively claim it. I would like to get a better understanding of the situation. For example, the article Otto von Habsburg claims that he "has been the Habsburg pretender to the Austrian throne since 1922". How can this be squared with the following:

Ich, Endegefertigter, erkläre hiermit gemäß § 2 des Gesetzes vom 3. April 1919, Staatsgesetzblatt für den Staat Deutschösterreich Nr. 209, dass ich auf meine Mitgliedschaft zum Hause Habsburg-Lothringen und auf alle aus ihr gefolgerten Herrschaftsansprüche ausdrücklich verzichte und mich als getreuer Staatsbürger der Republik bekenne. Urkund dessen habe ich diese Erklärung eigenhändig unterschrieben. Pöcking, am 31. Mai 1961. Otto Habsburg-Lothringen.

I, the undersigned, hereby declare in accordance with § 2 of the law of 3 April 1919, law gazette for the state of German Austria Nr 209, that I explicitly relinquish my membership in the House of Habsburg-Lothringen and all claims to power inferred from it and avow myself to be a faithful citizen of the republic. To witness this I have signed this declaration personally. Pöcking, 31 May 1961. Otto Habsburg-Lothringen.

It is my understanding that Karl Habsburg-Lothringen must have given a similar declaration, or he would never have been allowed to enter the Republic of Austria. I can give you the precise wording of the relevant constitutional law (Habsburgergesetz) if necessary. How can we apply the rules for a "pretender" in this situation? It seems to me that we are claiming that these two men have revoked their declarations and are committing treason against the Republic of Austria. In the case of the subject of this article this is particularly grave because he lives in Austria. Hans Adler 19:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
In his own words Otto did so for ‘purely practical’ reasons, and waited until after the birth of a male heir (Archduke Karl), he was still regarded as Head of the House of Habsburg, heir (‘pretender’) to the throne if there was ever a restoration. There is no evidence Karl renounced his rights, I very much doubt he did he, his father was allowed into Austria when he was young, how can a government extract a renunciation from a minor. At any rate no where in the naming conventions could one come to the conclusion “Karl Habsburg-Lothringen” is supported by naming conventions, people maybe have anti royal POV’s and prefer not to see royal titles, but the naming conventions (WP:NCROY) are clear for all to read and are careful to ensure a NPOV in artclce names, no Emperor Karl II of Austria and no Mr. Karl Habsburg-Lothringen. - dwc lr (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The question is, rights to what? There's no Austrian throne & hasn't been since 1919. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The same thing Louis XVIII of France held, rights to an abolished throne. But lets move away from the pretender part if you prefer. Where in the naming convetions, that apply to this man, does it say do not use a royal title? People are for this move to suit there own anti-royal POV’s which WP:NCROY protects these articles against. - dwc lr (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
You're suggesting that there's a republican conspiracy a foot? GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
People don’t seem to respect, or have limited knowledge of the naming conventions created by consensus, and which are there for a reason. People made a mistake, the honourable thing to do would be admit that and withdraw or change their support, no matter how painful. - dwc lr (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
BLP also exists for a reason, and calling a citizen of a republic a pretender to the state's former crown is not OK without very good evidence, even on a talk page. Hans Adler 20:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
"There is no evidence Karl renounced his rights". True. There is no direct evidence, and Austria is chaotic enough that I personally wouldn't be surprised if they let him slip through. On the other hand, this is was the Habsburgergesetz (still in effect, and of constitutional status) has to say:

Im Interesse der Sicherheit der Republik werden der ehemalige Träger der Krone und die sonstigen Mitglieder des Hauses Habsburg-Lothringen, diese, soweit sie nicht auf ihre Mitgliedschaft zu diesem Hause und auf alle aus ihr gefolgerten Herrschaftsansprüche ausdrücklich verzichtet und sich als getreue Staatsbürger der Republik bekannt haben, des Landes verwiesen.

In the interest of the safety/security of the republic, the former bearer of the crown and the other members of the House of Habsburg-Lothringen, the latter to the extent that they have not explicitly relinquished membership in said house and all claims to power inferred from it, and avowed themselves as faithful citizens of the republic, are expelled from the country.

That this provision applies to Karl Habsburg-Lothringen (and not just those Habsburgs who lived in 1919) follows from the fact that it is the only thing that currently prevents de:Ulrich Habsburg-Lothringen from running for the presidency of Austria on a Green Party ticket. In other words: If your claim that Karl Habsburg-Lothringen is a pretender turns out to be true, the republic will have to expel him. If the claim that in spite of this he is a pretender does not fall under both WP:REDFLAG and WP:GRAPEVINE, then I don't know what does.
So: no, unless and until you can provide proof that he is actually a pretender, and not just in the imagination of people who write Gothas and such (certainly not NPOV for such matters), we cannot treat him as a pretender. Hans Adler 20:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok for sake of argument he is not a pretender. If that is the case we are still in the same position as if he was, Archduke Karl of Austria is still the correct title in accordance with naming conventions WP:NCROY, nothing has changed. That is the simple fact of this case, there is no distinction between ruling and non ruling royals. People may not agree but should have the decency to respect the consensus that has been reached in the naming conventions. - dwc lr (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Why is his father's article not at Archduke Otto of Austria? GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Probably should be now, or Otto, Crown Prince of Austria. - dwc lr (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Crown Prince was the Hugarian usage, Archduke was the Austrian usage. My point is Otto was born with those titles (which he no longer has), where's Charles wasn't born with titles. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Crown Prince of Austria was used for the heir apparent, which Otto was. Every other Habsburg is Prince Imperial and Archduke of Austria, Prince Royal of Hungary and Bohemia, Archduke the main title that’s used. - dwc lr (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
We cannot base the title of a BLP article on a speculation that the subject may be willing to commit treason against his country. If any guidelines say otherwise, then they are simply wrong. Besides, I am getting the impression that, perhaps due to systemic bias (mostly British editors interested) there is a royalist and anti-republican bias built into this naming guideline. But for the moment we will have to work with it, or ignore it as necessary to stay within policy. Hans Adler 21:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of the guideline either, as it tilts towards monarchism, which is only natural since it's NCROY, I suppose. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
If that was the case we would be calling this guy the de jure HI&AM Emperor Charles II of Austria, King of Hungary..... - dwc lr (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The old BLP card, don’t worry we have sources for the current title so no issues here, so you can drop that concern and the making of outlandish claims of treason. What exactly do you think removing royal titles from non reigning royals (even when titles are still used and attributed to them and their royal status is what makes notable in the first place largely) would do, create a NPOV? Absurd, NPOV is a fundamental policy of Wikipeida. The naming conventions work very well to ensure that people who wish to impose their own POV are unable to do so. However people will still try when something does not suit their POV (as evident on this talk page), to push their POV through by showing contempt for an established a consensus that created neutral naming guidelines. - dwc lr (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
But they're not 'neutral' naming guidelines. They favour the monarchist PoV. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
And what exactly POV you think no title whatsoever would favour? It certainly isn't a neutral one. - dwc lr (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No royal title, would be neutral & factual. Austria has no monarchy, that's not republican PoV, it's a fact. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Non reigning royals still use and are attributed titles, the reason they are notable is largely because they are royal. - dwc lr (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:NCROY is a convention and does not supersede WP:BLP which is policy. To assert that this person makes any claim an Austrian title is to accuse him of a crime. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
This article does no such thing, it describes him as Head of the House of Habsburg. The name 'Archduke Karl of Austria' is sourced so no BLP problems in that area. - dwc lr (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
When among all the names that are used for the subject we choose one that would definitely bring him into trouble were he to use it at home, then we are making a clear political statement that has no place in Wikipedia. Others can use it, and some do, occasionally even in Austria. But it's not true that Archduke etc. is his name in the same way that Habsburg-Lothringen is his name. We are currently making a very odd choice, and that would require a very good reason. Hans Adler 22:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
We have a name supported by reliable sources. If you don’t agree with the naming conventions that have been agreed upon down the years by the community, go to WP:NCROY and propose non reigning royalty are given commoner names. Until such a time as there is a change the correct title is Archduke Karl of Austria. The suggested title is unsupported and although people may not agree with this fact, they should accept it nonetheless. - dwc lr (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
If "the naming conventions that have been agreed upon down the years by the community" contradict WP:BLP policy then so much the worse for the conventions. (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
In this case, I don't think the convention does contradict BLP policy - the convention simply says to follow English usage in cases like this, but some other of its words are being grotesquely twisted to mean something they were clearly never intended to.--Kotniski (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose! per international tradition and naming conventions WP:NCNT. This Requested move is hilarious! Extremely POV. Driven by Austrian republican sentiments with a tenacious point of view? This is the English Wikipedia, not the Austrian Wikipedia. The common international and English naming conventions are applicable here, not some republican view from Austria. I would entirely accept that in the introduction also is mentioned that he is known in Austria as Karl Habsburg-Lothringen and that titles are forbidden in the republic (which actually is done in several articles), but per convention and tradition he is internationally known as Archduke Karl of Austria. Austrian law is not applicable here. Literally thousands of other biographies of members from other (former/defunct) royal or noble houses, are written in this point of view. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks for expressing so openly and shamelessly that this is about defending a vested right to write articles from a specific non-neutral POV, only mentioning that the other POV also exists. I couldn't have said it better myself. Hans Adler 11:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    That's obvious rubbish. I deliberately used the European Union and the United Nations as sources. He is internationally known as "Karl Habsburg-Lothringen". DrKiernan (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I just looked the subject up in Who's Who in Österreich. It calls him "Karl Habsburg-Lothringen", gives his occupation as "Forstwirt" (forester) and mentions a large number of honours including some Maltese and Deutscher Orden stuff, but not the title Erzherzog or Archduke. His father is given as "Dr. Otto [Habsburg-Lothringen]", and his mother as "Regina Prinzessin v. Sachsen-Meiningen". I know this does not prove anything as things may be handled differently in different languages/countries, but it does seem to be relevant background. Hans Adler 13:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - the same kind of requested moves were tried here and here, but then for the Dukes of Parma, Carlos Hugo and his son Carlos. Although the attempts for alteration failed of course, the discussion lasted in total for two months before it finally ended! Should we have this kind of discussion all over again?? Hopefully not, because that would be really a waste of effort and computer storage! Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Having been involved in those Parma discussions, I hope this does not pointlessly drag on like those. Neutral guidelines established by consensus always win over biased points of view in the end. - dwc lr (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    Glad to hear you support a neutral guideline. Let's write it. Hans Adler 17:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • And another comment. I looked for "Habsburg" in World Biographical Information System Online. It does not appear to have information on any living members of the family, but even those members who were born with a title but lost it when the republic was established (half a dozen) are filed under their last name "Habsburg-Lothringen". It's getting increasingly clear to me that Wikipedia is a unique royalist hold-out among mainstream reference sources. Hans Adler 13:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Not really a 'unique royalist hold-out'. As it is stated in the naming conventions 'follow English usage, which tends to accept pretences to titles', we have sources in English and even German which give the title Archduke to this individual, this is the practice of English language sources. We are on the English Wikipedia after all, titles are attributed to people. We are not at the German Wikipedia which will reflect German language usage. I'm sorry you can't accept English language usage for members of former reigning families. - dwc lr (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Context is everything. There is a difference between random sources that mention or address a subject and formal situations such as the title of an encyclopedia entry. For the title there is a presumption that it is somehow the most common, most natural or most correct way to speak about the person. In this case it's just not true. It would be beyond ridiculous to address someone as an "Archduke of Austria" outside certain highly ceremonial contexts such as in church or university rituals. Fact is, he is not an Archduke, and certainly not of Austria. So why put it in the title?
I searched for "Karl Habsburg-Lothringen" in Google Books and found the following:
  • "This statement was reported by Mr. Karl Habsburg-Lothringen, German MEP, who cites press reports as his source." (A 2009 book on human rights)
  • "FOR a brief moment last week, Austria was carried back to its imperial past as Karl Habsburg-Lothringen, the grandson and heir" (The Economist, 1993)
  • "Mr Karl HABSBURG-LOTHRINGEN Member" (Who's who in the European Union, European Commission 1998)
  • "Karl Habsburg- Lothringen" (Vacher's European companion 1998)
  • "Austrian representative Karl Habsburg-Lothringen similarly underscored" (International trade reporter, Bureau of National Affairs, 1998)
  • "However, Austrian Christian Democrat Karl Habsburg-Lothringen favored encouraging Kiev" (International environment reporter, Bureau of National Affairs, 1998)
  • "Karl Habsburg-Lothringen Auerspergstrasse ..." (The practical U.S. resource guide to the European Union, 1998)
There are a lot more hits for "Archduke Karl of Austria" – but they all refer to a bloke who has a statue in Vienna, a "chivalrous prince", at whose funeral something or other happened. Did you know that the subject of this article "supported BOZZINI's attempts to obtain citizenship in Frankfurt in the summer of 1802"? That he "delivered Germany from the French incubus by his two victories over Jourdan"? I found only one exception: A book whose title "The royal families of Europe" promises the ultimate NPOV about the normal way to speak about "noble" people. Hans Adler 16:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Look we all know he is sometimes known as Karl Hasburg-Lothringen, we can all dig up sources for title, or no title. No one denies in Austria his legal name is Karl Hasburg-Lothringen, and no one proposes removing it from the lead. However the Archducal title is commonly attributed to him, especially in English, and thus should be used; there is no justification to deny the title. In this instance we consult the applicable naming conventions and they could not be any clearer on what this article should be called. Your position in this RM is indefensible. - dwc lr (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Even if that were true, the disambiguation guideline is clear. This article cannot be at "Archduke Karl of Austria", since this man is definitely not the primary meaning of that term. The article must be moved, and the most obvious choice is "Karl Habsburg-Lothringen" since that is a very common term used to refer to him, and all the other wikipedias bar one have placed him at that title, indicating its broad international acceptability. DrKiernan (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. But DWC LR's claim isn't even true. I tried to verify from books that he is sometimes known as an "Archduke" in English, but the only thing I found was one royalist book. Plenty of other books in English, printed by the EU or US or UNESCO administration and others, refer to him under his actual name. (Many more in German, obviously, including one about the House of Habsburg to which he wrote a preface.) I would also give you examples from newspapers, but he just doesn't seem to appear in newspapers any more. (And in 1998 they tended not to be online.) Which makes me aware that this article is extremely incomplete. It doesn't even mention the World Vision affair that ended his political career in 1999. (In 2004 he paid back 36,899 Euros that are said to have been diverted from World Vision Austria to his election campaign.) Instead of this vital information there is just the usual pedigree cruft and of course Archduke Archduke Archduke LOOK EVERYBODY he is an Archduke but the naughty Austrians have an unfair law that deprives him of his rights. Hans Adler 18:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Karl von Habsburg makes sense as an alternative. We don't know it for sure, but this could well be his legal name in Germany. (Although according to some information on the German Wikipedia that I could not verify a German court decided that his father's legal family name is Habsburg-Lothringen even in Germany.) And it's certainly used a lot in reliable sources. Hans Adler 19:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move. He is not an archduke, there is no evidence that he claims to be, very little evidence that anyone else thinks he is, and per WP:BLP it is harmful to suggest the contrary. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Karl himself uses different forms of his name, and other people call him by different forms of his name: Karl von Habsburg, Karl Habsburg-Lothringen, Archduke Karl of Austria, Habsburg Károly. Sources can be identified for all of these. It's difficult to determine the most common form of name when an individual himself uses different forms depending upon the circumstances. What is most worrisome in this discussion is that most of the "votes" seem motivated chiefly by pro-monarchist or anti-monarchist sentiment. That shouldn't be the chief issue. Unfortunately there's a lot of campaigning by both sides at present. Since there are more anti-monarchists, they will win. But that shouldn't affect our judgments on this or related issues. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    If you have found any evidence that he refers to himself as an archduke in contexts where he can get away with it, then I would very much like to see that. Because I have been looking for something like that and haven't found it. My impression is that he himself consistently uses "Karl Habsburg-Lothringen" or in some cases "Cpt. Karl Habsburg-Lothringen". This is also what the overwhelming number of reliable sources in German use. Reliable sources in English are divided between "Karl Habsburg-Lothringen" and "Karl von Habsburg". I wrote above that the only thing referring to him that I found with a Google Books search for "Archduke Karl von Habsburg" is a royalty book. Surprisingly, a search just for "Karl von Habsburg" turns up more: A conspiracy theory book with a swastika on the title page also calls him an archduke.[14] and there is The sword of imagination: memoirs of a half-century of literary conflict [15]. But that's not nearly enough to give him the right to the present title against all his more notable relatives who are consistently known under this title because they actually held it. Hans Adler 06:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per DE Morphon and dwc lr. Kittybrewster 08:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Whose arguments only make any sense at all if they can support the notion that the person is best known as "Archduke Karl of Austria". All the evidence so far seems to point the other way - the references provided for that name are rare and obscure compared with those we have for the other proposed names.--Kotniski (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Argument 1: It is not a linguistic question. "English use" means the way English use titles, it cannot be interpreted as if "English use" meant Wikipedia must use abolished titles. Argument 2: Royal and noble titles are not simply ruled by nature and birth, rater they are subject to public law, in the UK and in any other land too. Therefore legal acts regarding them cannot be ignored. And if an Austrian title is abolished and explicitly forbidden by Austrian law, "English use" never means that this title must be used. I cannot see any argument for this, I can see only an agressive royalist POV citing incoherent uses. Argument 3: Wikipedia:NCROY is not to be cited here at all, as Habsburg is neither royal, nor noble. He has not gained any of these, neither inherited, nor was granted! --peyerk (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. This page should be retitled "Karl von Habsburg", which is how the subject is referred to by both The New York Times and by The Economist. The term Archduke Karl of Austria should redirect to Archduke Charles, Duke of Teschen, a commander in the Napoleonic Wars who is honored with a large equestrian statue at Heldenplatz in Vienna and is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Kauffner (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


Charles von Habsburg (b. 1961) or Karl von Habsburg (b. 1961) would be appropiate (I prefer the former, per english usage). GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

"Charles von Habsburg" is nonsense. Historically, first names were usually translated for reigning kings. But they are certainly not translated for random living individuals, regardless of how grand their family is. A Google Books search for "Charles von Habsburg" turns up almost nothing (22 results), and all results are for different people. For Google searches it's similar. Hans Adler 15:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Based partly on the discussion at WT:NCROY#Archduke Karl of Austria, it seems to me that Karl von Habsburg (born 1961) is where agreement is converging. Any problems with that title?--Kotniski (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I prefer the current proposal, but I have no problem with that one. Hans Adler 19:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I prefer it to the present title. DrKiernan (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Karl von Habsburg (born 1961) is acceptable, even though his grandfather went by Charles. Then again, there's Juan Carlos I of Spain. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
My first preference is Archduke Karl von Hasburg as this form is used so showing the title is not completely redundant, especially as his maine notability now is effectively as head of the House of Habsburg and activities related to that role such grandmasterships of some orders. Karl von Habsburg is better than Karl Habsburg-Lothringen, he seems to use Karl von Habsburg himself, at least in English. - dwc lr (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Interesting find. I still think that the archduke stuff is beyond the pale and that the few reliable sources using it are mostly fishy. But given that he can't use "Karl von Habsburg" in Austria, the fact that he used it with the UNPO now pushes me to preferring it over "Karl Habsburg-Lothringen". Hans Adler 21:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The website for the European Order of St George which he is Grand Master of calls him Archduke. [16] The Apostolic Nuncio to Austria calls him Archduke.[17] News sources call him Archduke, Daily Mail [18], Bloomberg [19] Sydney Morning Herald. [20], there are many others hits, some in Google Books as well. The title is relevant to the article on the Head of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine. - dwc lr (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Even these obscure references mostly call him Archduke Karl von H. or Archduke K. H-L., not Archduke K. of Austria. And since references using these names without the Archduke are more common, I'm still inclined to drop it (though Archduke Karl von H. would be better than "Archduke Karl of Austria"). The "von Habsburg" bit seems sufficient to connect him to the House of H-L. --Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy for Archduke Karl von Habsburg. - dwc lr (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not, as he is not an archduke, has never been an archduke, does not appear to use that title in public, and uses of that title appear to be mostly restricted to yellow press style reporting. Hans Adler 14:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
That’s your view. Reliable sources take a different view. - dwc lr (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I just made four statements. Which of them is explicitly contradicted by reliable sources? Maybe the first two, but then they are contradicted by more reliable sources. You have found a source where he used "Karl von Habsburg" in public. If you have one where he actually refers to himself as an archduke, then you really shouldn't hide it from us. The fourth was my interpretation of the sources that were presented, and I am pretty sure it's a reasonable interpretation of what has been presented so far. Hans Adler 16:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Defiantly the first two. Sources do not feel compelled to take the view of the Austrian government, nor should Wikipedia, sources regard him as an Archduke and call him as such, there is no issue calling him Archduke Karl. We have one source where he signs his name; he probably uses a number of different forms of his name depending on the situation. In a political role he probably won’t use a title, as Head of the House of Habsburg or Grand Master of an order (one order website he is grand master of uses a title for him) he may well do. - dwc lr (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidence that he uses this title, and in fact within Austria it would be illegal. And as this is supposedly an Austrian title it is very relevant that in Austria he does not hold it. Wikipedia also does not call someone a professor at a university that does not actually recognise him as a professor. The mere fact that there are people who would prefer him to be an archduke does not make him one and does not make it right to create the impression that he is one. This is wishful thinking. Hans Adler 18:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
And can you please stop that nonsense about his family? What's next? Moving Barack Obama to Daddy Barack Obama because (for the sake of the argument) that's the way how the POTUS is addressed in his family?
We often use titles for people because that's how the English language works. This is not a case in which the English language works that way, so there is no excuse to add the title. Hans Adler 18:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
He is who he is, a Habsburg. All the websites for which he is Grand Master of give him the Archduke title.The Order of St. Sebastian The Archducal title is clearly relevant to this individual. - dwc lr (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Come on! The website of a German-Belgian-Dutch shooting club for which he serves as patron? Are you seriously offering that as a reliable source for his being an archduke? (And in this case "Archduke of Austria", no less. Austria disagrees.) This website is obviously self-published and would not be usable for his biography even if the claim came from an established expert. And yes, he is who he is, a Habsburg. That's just about the most awe-inspiring surname you can have in Austria. I am not sure why you think it must additionally be adorned by a ridiculous anachronistic title. Hans Adler 18:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with this. It's way cooler to be the modest heir to the Habsburg thrones than to be some poseur claiming a bogus title. Kauffner (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Indeed, Austria has no archdukes. The country is a republic, has been since 1919. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The Archduke title will be in the lead, its not like the title will be suppressed. The title is used I don't see any issue using it in the article name when he is known by it. - dwc lr (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
He isn't "known by it". A small number of people choose to use it for transparent political reasons in certain formal and ceremonial contexts, and an even smaller number may use it outside such contexts either to really out themselves as hardcore royalists or sycophants, or because they have been informed incorrectly (e.g. by the English Wikipedia). But it appears that the overwhelming majority of people get this right and address him or his father as "Mr Habsburg-Lothringen" or "Mr von Habsburg". [21] [22] [23] Hans Adler 15:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
It is not a linguistic question. "English use" means the way English use titles, it cannot be interpreted as if "English use" meant Wikipedia must use abolished titles. Royal and noble titles are not simply ruled by nature and birth, rater they are subject to public law, in the UK and in any other land too. That means, Parliament could abolish them at any point by its discretion as te holder of sovereignty! Therefore legal acts of other nations regarding titles cannot be ignored. And if an Austrian title is abolished and explicitly forbidden by Austrian law, "English use" never means that this title must be used. Furthermore, Wikipedia:NCROY is not to be cited here at all, as Habsburg is neither royal, nor noble. He has not gained any of these, neither inherited, nor was granted! --peyerk (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As I surmised above, consensus doesn't seem to be going anywhere other than Karl von Habsburg (born 1961). I move we end this very old discussion by moving the article to that title (it seems clear that the current title can't stand, if only because this is not the primary topic for it). But where should Karl von Habsburg direct to? If to a new disambiguation page, who should be on it? (Oh, I suppose de:Karl von Habsburg answers that question.) --Kotniski (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The people on the German DAB page are just other Habsburgs named Karl. As far as common English names go, I don't think there is any need for disambiguation. We can G6 this article over to Karl von Habsburg and get this over with. This request has certainly been open way more than the required seven days. Kauffner (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree it's time to close it; but am not convinced this is the primary topic. Searching Google Books reveals that "Karl von Habsburg" as often as not refers to someone else, even in English-language publications.--Kotniski (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The Habsburgs have a longstanding link with the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. They call him either Karl von Habsburg-Lothringen or Archduke Karl von Habsburg-Lothringen.[24] Those are presumably the forms that he prefers. Kauffner (talk) 07:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I have said in this discussion use “Archduke Karl von Habsburg” as the title is relevant and used still, there is no justification to remove the Archducal title completely. - dwc lr (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2011 (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.

removal of unsupported statement[edit]

I removed a statement from this article owing to no support being given for it in the citation itself. (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Knight Orders[edit]

Karl Habsburg (and afaik his father Otto) never claimed to be Grand Master of the Imperial and Royal Order of Maria Theresa, of Order of Leopold or the Order of the Iron Crown. The sources of the article doesn't show him with the insignias of these orders. He is in fact Grand Master of the Golden Fleece (Austrian Branch) which is recognized by the Republic of Austria. He also acts as Grand Master of the Order of St. George and of the Order of St.Sebastian in Europe (these insigna can be seen on the pictures).

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karl von Habsburg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)