Talk:Wilhelm Karl, Duke of Urach

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moved[edit]

This page has been moved for the following reasons. First, consistency: Wikipedia does not recognize temporary titles of pretence. E.g., we have Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta, not Tomislav II of Croatia; Prince Frederick Charles of Hesse, not Väinö I of Finland. Secondly, notability; in the life of a man of 63 years, it is absurd to inflate a three-month episode which amounted to nothing in the end to characterize his entire life. Third, POV; it takes the viewpoint of an infinitesimally tiny monarchist minority and makes it the dominant historical viewpoint expressed by Wikipedia. For all these reasons, the Duke of Urach should not be characterized by Wikipedia as "Mindaugas II". It should merely be said that it was intended, if the Duke took the throne, to have him bear this name. It is not clear that he ever personally used it on any document issued by himself.RandomCritic (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Importance[edit]

For the benefit of Couter-revolutionary, this foreign "puppet" KING of several months (essentially foisted upon the populace by a military occupier), is of 'Low-importance" in the history of Lithuania. You might want to try to put Maximillian I of Mexico as a High- importance article for France or Mexico instead. There he was an "EMPEROR". Dr. Dan 22:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Firstly I don't think it important at all whether he ruled for a few months or a few decades, he was the King of Lithunaia. The fact that he was "foreign" is also of no importance and there is no need for such xenophobic comments. You are correct, if poor Emperor Maximillian is not listed as High-importance I should like to see to it that he is. Mindaugas was the King of Lithuania, he was head of state. It matters not how he got there or how long he ruled for. You clearly let your personal bias interefere with this rating. Yours &c. Couter-revolutionary 23:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS, perhaps Mindaugas should also have some sort of Monaco - related Stub attached to his article.Couter-revolutionary 23:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, my friend, my "xenophobia" has nothing to do with it. When you put KING in capital letters in your edit summary, it made me laugh. Hoping that you too had a sense of humor, I put EMPEROR in capital letters in my response as well. Now that you have allowed me to better understand your position, please do go to the appropriate French and Mexican articles or talk pages, and give "poor" Maximillian a higher importance rating than he got at Queretaro. I hope I didn't offend you or your family with my edit. Dr. Dan 03:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all - to become KING, as you've said, he had to be Crowned - I do not see a single word about Coronation in the article, do you? Was there any Crown for him ready?--Lokyz 08:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With this one, I am with Couter-revolutionary. Proclamation of King was unique event in history of Lithuania, shaping its political arena. Person in question was King elect, this means a bit different approach with "coronation". Second, Republic was proclaimed only in 1920... M.K. 09:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong one. he was newer crowned (even elects have to be crowned), the second thing , he has never been to Lithuania, so this tactical maneuver is interesting, although not important. Let me rephrase it this way -Council of Lithuania is top importance, and someone, who has been chosen as a tool in Council's game, is not important.--Lokyz 10:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you - this means a bit different approach with "coronation" M.K. 10:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is all your opinion...He was the head-of-state of Lithuania. Fact. As such he is definitely not of low importance.--Couter-revolutionary 15:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not for a single moment in his life he was a head of the Lithuanian state. That is a fact, and not your wishfull thinking.--Lokyz 17:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, as a fact he was. It is your PoV that he was not.--Couter-revolutionary 18:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A.) He was too afraid to come to Lithuania.
B.) Council of Lithuania did not have any right to decide form of Government of Lithuania. According to decisions of Vilnius Conference, such things could be decided only by Consistuent Assembley. You might want to check it out.--Lokyz 18:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue now is your clear PoV, illustrated in the above comments.--Couter-revolutionary 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you identify the specific source that forms the basis for your belief that Mindaugas was "King regnant" rather than "King-elect"? I thought that the Germans blocked any promulgation or proclamation? Moreover, I think clarification about 2 points is needed: 1. After Duke Wilhelm accepted the invitation to reign, what did the Taryba's election vote (or formal invitation) state was to be the date his reign would commence? 2. I have also read that in inviting the Duke to assume the throne the Taryba exceeded its lawful authority, but felt justified in doing so as an emergency measure because they feared that the German occupiers were about to compel them to accept Kaiser Wilhelm II as king instead. So what was the legal basis for the Taryba's invitation to Duke Wilhelm? However, I do agree with you that no coronation is necessary for a monarch to commence his reign (Wilhelm II himself never had a coronation) -- however I do believe I have seen a photo of a crown that was designed for Mindaugas, although never worn. Lethiere 21:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you've seen Crown of him, maybe you can point out where, and by whom was it crafted and assigned?--Lokyz 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bearing a Crown does not make one King. --Couter-revolutionary 22:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I cannot, at present, locate the source of my recollection -- and it is entirely possible that I am misremembering. But I seem to recall a link on The Russian-Balkan Royals Message Board within the last year to an article about the crown. It was not commissioned by the Taryba, but by a private entity. The crown's design was discussed in the article I read and it was, I think, created and has been on public display -- but I cannot recall by whom or where. It's possible that I am confusing Mindaugas II of Lithuania for Väinö I of Finland (or some other crown candidate), but I don't think so. I'll keep looking...Lethiere 00:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of Mindaugas/Wilhelm was not whether he was ever crowned a king, but that Lithuanians were making public to the world their wish to be a sovereign state once again. Of course the invitation was withdrawn, and the Taryba was not elected. By choosing Wilhelm, they were preferring a Catholic, as most Lithuanians were Catholic at the time, and also a man who obviously knew how courts and royalty worked, and he seems to have been related to half of Europe.78.17.53.134 (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious statements[edit]

Two dubious statements in text: 1. Fled form Lithuania with the family - AFAIK, he has not been in Lithuania. 2. Changed Constitution - Lithuanian did not have full Constitution until 1922, the first provisional Constitutional act was drafted only November 2, 1918.--Lokyz 22:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source telling us he was never in Lithuania, as opposed to a piece of populist propaganda?--Couter-revolutionary 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any source that he was, or are you just simply having fun with personal attacks? Stop that, it's not allowed in Wikipedia.--Lokyz 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do try and take a personal attack action against me. I have not made one, or anything that could be interpreted as a personal attack. You are contesting an existing piece of information and, therefore, ought provide a source. If you believe he was not in Lithuania you ought be able to do this. --Couter-revolutionary 22:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calling my words populist propaganda is a personal attack, I do not try to change article text, I've said AFAIK, I do not push my opinion, so if you have reference proving, he has been in Lithuania - please provide it, if you cannot, then tag dubious will stay until someone will find reference.
And another one thing - until November 5th Lithuania was directly ruled by German occupational government, Neither taryba, neither Wilhelm had no real power. You might care to read referenced section Establishing independence.
And the last thing - could you please tell at least one legl action of Mindaugas II, that proves he did rule? A document, an order, anything? If you do not have facts nor references , please stop your name calling, it won't prove in any way, that your POV is better the mine. Have a good day at library.--Lokyz 23:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. Ah, and here the evidence form German Wikipedia [[1]], let me cite it for you - Seine Zeit als litauischer Monarch dauerte jedoch nur wenige Monate, und Wilhelm II. 'übte sein Amt niemals aus, denn bereits am 2. November 1918 wurde in einer Sitzung der Taryba einstimmig beschlossen, die Berufung Wilhelms zum König von Litauen nicht zur Ausführung kommen zu lassen.[reply]
Calling PoV statements propaganda is not a personal attack. Citing Wikipedia isn't a source, unless the German wikipedia is referenced. Please provide a source which proves he was not resident in Lithuania and you can include it. As the article stands I am happy with it. I shan't be trying to prove anything on my part.--Couter-revolutionary 23:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had it Please provide any source that he was in Lithuania, and you may keep it. talk 23:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Now it is better:) So you will not avoid a walk to library:)--Lokyz 23:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And to you also.--Couter-revolutionary 23:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not care about this article, I think it has low importance to Lithuania. And btw, i did not change a single word in the text, so you've tagged as disputable article you were trying to present as "non propaganda":) Have good day .--Lokyz 23:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may not have changed the text but you did describe some of it as dubious.--Couter-revolutionary 23:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read Wikipedia policy on dubious (dubious means doubt, btw) , especialy the Verify part. I do not push any POV, i just added tag for someone, who might have access to references to verify it. Ok, enough Wikipedia article talk page is not some sort of chat room--Lokyz 23:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Back to the Question[edit]

And back to the question, on the continuum of Lithuanian history, is this KING of low-importance, or high-importance? That's the question. That's all the question asks. No need to ruin one's day. Dr. Dan 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading[edit]

I'd recommend the lecture of the essay of Sergej von Cube: Ein württembergischer Prinz auf dem Thron von Litauen, 1918 in German http://jahrbuch.annaberg.de/cube.html. In my opinion this is a neutrally written account of what happened in 1918. It shows the German pressure on Lithuania that led to the election in July and the change of mind in October. In the article somebody denotes this essay as "claims", IMO, they do not demand anything and they are well proven, providing links to the relevant archives of the Hauptstaatsarchiv in Stuttgart. According to this essay, Wilhelm has never been to Lithuania, talks having taken place in Freiburg and he did never act as a king. I further recommend adding some of these developments to the article, even if they were not of lasting importance for Lithuania. Since the lead has been shortened, the king-thing is not understandable any more. I leave this to interested parties. --Gf1961 10:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On November 2nd, the Taryba univocally made the following resolution: "The July 11th decison of the Taryba to appoint the Duke of Urach to King of Lithuania will not be executed". --131.152.61.96 10:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just very small question, do we need {{neutrality}} tag? M.K. 19:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this page is clearly being used by republicans to promote agendas.--Couter-revolutionary 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this crap is being re-started by monarchists to promote agendas, can I simply say Écrassez l'infame?. I also say let them go to the article on H.I.M. Bokassa I, have a troll fest, and then "Let them eat cake"! Dr. Dan 02:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is certainly not beign used by monarchists to promote agendas! Further, to what "crap" do you refer? and how is it being re-started?--Couter-revolutionary 16:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please quit it, both of you. It is inappropriate to make accusations about either republicans or monarchists. If you want to criticize the edit of a particular editor, that's fine. It's not fine to accuse groups of people of trying to promote agendas. Noel S McFerran 19:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blessing from the Pope[edit]

I was at his Lichtenstein castle near Stuttgart in 2006 as a tourist and saw a document from the then-Pope hanging in the chapel.

I suppose Lithuania had a Catholic ethos then - it must be less today. A German protective link was considered better at that time the previous experience of a Russian link from the 1700s to 1917. Especially the prospect of a communist regime ruling a Catholic country.

So he may (must) appear less important now than he was to the Taryba in 1917-18. I think he was elected by majority vote, and he undertook to live in Lithuania, speak Lithuanian and remain Roman Catholic. That was what went down in 1918, and is of historical interest, but we live in a different Europe today.Wluki 12:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, wht are you talking about - king, that newer has visited a land of his ruling, or nation which chose a way of democracy?--Lokyz 23:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed?[edit]

Why is a citation needed as to the Duke's descent from the Jagiellons? Almost every European royal is descended from them, Catholic and Protestant alike, they did after all live a long time ago. In his particular case, his great-grandmother in paternal line was a granddaughter of Friedrich Wilhelm I, King in Prussia, by his daughter Sophie Dorothea Marie, Margravine of Brandenburg-Schwedt. The line can easily be traced back from Friedrich Wilhelm I to John Sigismund, Elector of Brandenburg, who married a daughter of Albert, Duke of Prussia, whose wife was a daughter of Wilhelm, Duke of Julich-Cleves-Berg, whose wife was a daughter of the Emperor Ferdinand I by Anna, a daughter of Vladislaus II of Bohemia and Hungary, a Jagiellon. He doubtless had numerous other descents, but this was the easiest to hand.

I call him the Duke because he was undoubtedly that, and seems to have neither reigned nor ruled in Lithuania.

86.162.143.103 (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone has restored the "citation needed", on the grounds that the Talk page is not a reference. I can see that, but where exactly is one expected to find a reference tracing the descent of the 2nd Duke of Urach from the Jagiellon Kings? I supplied from my own knowledge ample information for anyone who cares to to trace the descent all the way, using Wikipedia articles. The descent is not in any way in doubt, and I think the "citation needed" is just plain silly. I won't revert as that gets pretty silly too, but I would appreciate it if someone would explain exactly where it is they think I am wrong.

86.162.143.103 (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm and the Jagiellon dynasty[edit]

« William of Urach descended from the Lithuanian Jagiellon dynasty[citation needed], among others kings [...] »

2118: Casimir IV Jagiellon (1427-1492)
x 10 March 1454
2119: Elisabeth of Austria (d. 1505) (1435?-1505)

1059: Barbara Jagiellon (1478-1534)
x 21 November 1496, Leipzig
1058: George, Duke of Saxony (1471-1539)
529: Magdalena of Saxony (1507-1534)
x 6 November 1524, Dresden
528: Joachim II Hector, Elector of Brandenburg (1505-1571)
264: John George, Elector of Brandenburg (1525-1598)
x (3) 6 October 1577
265: Elisabeth of Anhalt-Zerbst (1563-1607)
132: Joachim Ernest, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach (1583-1625)
x 1612
133: Sophia zu Solms-Laubach (1594-1651)
66: Albert, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach (1620-1667)
x 5 October 1651
67: Sophie Margarete, Gräfin zu Oettingen-Oettingen 1634-1664
33: Eleonore Juliane von Brandenburg-Ansbach (1663-1724)
x 31 October 1682
32: Frederick Charles, Duke of Württemberg-Winnental (1652-1697)
16: Karl Alexander, Duke of Württemberg (1684-1737)
x 1st May 1727, Frankfurt am Main
17: Maria Augusta von Thurn und Taxis (1706-1756)
8: Frederick II Eugene, Duke of Württemberg (1732-1797)
x 29 November 1753, Schwedt
9: Friederike Sophia Dorothea of Brandenburg-Schwedt (1736-1798)
4: William Fredereick Philip of Wurtemberg (1761-1830)
x 23 August 1800
5: Wilhelmine Rodis, Gräfin von Thunderfeldt (1777-1832)
2: Wilhelm, 1st Duke of Urach (1810-1869)
x (2) 15 February 1863
3: Princess Florestine of Monaco (1833-1897)
1: 'Mindaugas II of Lithuania '

Source: page 'Wilhelm II von Urach' in the genealogical database 'roglo', and a list of Mindaugas' ancestors, including 12 degrees (number of 'generations' is used in a bad manner by French genealogists, showing together the person which is studied and the degrees of ancestors...)

If it should be useful for this 'citation needed'... smiley Hégésippe | ±Θ± 17:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already noted previously ([2]), the citation is necessary not just because there is some doubt about the fact (actually, there isn't much doubt about that - most likely almost all European kings and dukes of that period can be proved to be descendants of some Lithuanian grand duke), but because there is a doubt about the importance and relevance of the fact. Did anyone care if he was a descendant of Casimir IV Jagiellon? If the answer is "yes", there should be at least some source that would discuss that. And if there is no such source (that's likely to be the case, as none has been provided since April of 2008 - [3]), there seems to be no reason why we should mention this here either. Thus I'm going to remove the sentence in question. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wilhelm Karl, Duke of Urach. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wilhelm_Karl,_Duke_of_Urach&oldid=1209785698"