Talk:William I, German Emperor

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


If he was born in the House of Hohenzollern then wouldn't that be his actual surname and shouldn't that be included in his full name? i.e., William Frederick Louis Hohenzollern. Please clarify. Thanks.

Yes he was born a member of the House of Hohenzollern. No he didn't use Hohenzollern as a surname. Let's not make things up about William. Noel S McFerran 21:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if he did not used it as a surname though, wasn't it still legally his name? Or was that name officially dropped somewhere along in the order of succession?

Is he in English really called Wilhelm I of Germany? He was king of Prussia! In German he is called Wilhelm I, König von Preußen (Prussia) 23:30, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • He was König von Preußen _and_ Deutscher Kaiser. Weialawaga 20:27, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
He is my great, great grandfather. He had an affair with a non-royal and through her had a son. She had to flee the country for her safety. She died five years after giving birth. Their son returned to Germany, but left because of the war... (Drea 14:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've mostly heard him called Wilheim I not William I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

German Aristocrats have no surnames in the usual sense, as the Queen of Great Britain is called Elizabeth II Windsor - which was quite a surprise for me as a German when I read so in Wikipedia. It is usual to call them by their most reknown fief - which this is, is not always clear. The Counts of Scheyern became some day Counts of Wittelsbach and later on both Dukes of Bavaria, and Counts Palatinate, and were known as the latter, it was not always clear which of the two - when the Palatinate was temporarily lost, but the Kingdom of Bavaria founded, they became eventually known as the House of Bavaria, and watch out: when the titles of nobility were formed to personal surnames in 1919, it was precisely Bavaria, not Wittelsbach, that was officially registered. Likewise, if Wilhelm needed a surname retrospectively, it would be Prussia, which is today the surname of his descendants. (The Archdukes of Austria being the only exception known to me. Their name was Austria, and even as such given to the Emperordom in 1804 - "Austria" as a land being only Upper and Lower Austria until then; the (lost) County of Habsburg was some sort of family history, and actually not even the name of the extant dynasty, which would more appropriately be called Lorraine. However, the Republic of Austria feared for its own name, which it has from their family name, and named them Habsburg-Lothringen - HIH Archduke Otto was eventually naturalized German and then chose the name by which he was known in public, by then unofficially, and became a von Habsburg.) -- (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
And what he's called in Germany, as put above, is just Wilhelm der Erste without any Prussia, Germany, or German. It's clear enough. "Kaiser Wilhelm" without number refers to his grandson. -- (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
But we can't just translate it as "William I" without any qualifier, because there are lots of other William I's. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
That's clear. I just wanted to say it doesn't make much sense to ask what he's called in Germany if we look for a "surname". -- (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Germanykstyles[edit]

I would like to hear some opinions on the recent addition of {{Infobox Germanykstyles}} and {{Infobox prussiakstyles}}. They seem to take up an awful lot of screen real estate for communicating little useful information. Should there be a need for them, they might be better arranged in landscape rather than portrait orientation. Rl 09:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It has been condensed into Imperial and Royal styles now. Charles 05:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Yes, in english he is usually reffered to as William I of Germany, not wilhelm. Not even his grandson is called wilhelm in textbooks. The page title should reflect this. -Alex, 00:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


  • Weak-ish support If brought up for move, I support the format William I, German Emperor, but would optimally prefer to have "unique" cases of titling discussed as additions to the naming conventions. Charles 05:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak-ish support, in that I support the move away from the wrong "of Germany" to a correct ", German Emperor", (which I had done) but I prefer the unique German Wilhelm I over the ambiguous English William I. Only 3 letters are different here, while for example the Category:Polish_monarchs lists monarchs with Ł and Ś in their names, which is hardly English. --Matthead 10:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I think he (unlike his grandson) is better known as "William" than "Wilhelm". And I much prefer use of "German Emperor" to "of Germany," which is ambiguous and awkward, and possibly simply incorrect. john k 11:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support and agree with John. Olessi 13:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support, "of Germany" is an artificial WP convention, and does not claim to be usage. However, changing it, in these three cases, may be useful as disambiguation. Support name; who uses Wilhelm I? Septentrionalis 17:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pointless move. The of Germany is there for disambiguation, as in hundreds of other articles. It isn't a statement of title. Otherwise Queen Elizabeth would have to be at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Albert II of Belgium would have to be at Albert II of the Belgians. The French president would have to be universally have to be described as President of the Republic, etc. FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 20:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    Presidents of the French Republic do not have that office affixed to the end of their name and few royal/imperial titles take the form of Adjective title. The difference here is a very important one... Germany wasn't really a unitary state and there was explicit discussion and opinions regarding German Emperor vs Emperor of Germany. Belgium isn't a collection of various little statelets as Germany was at the time and, well, the United Kingdom is as official as Canada is for the Dominion of Canada, but no one is going to, in that instance, rename everything regarding Canada with reference to the Dominion of Canada. Belgium and the United Kingdom exist, but Germany didn't exactly exist from 1871 to 1918 as a country. Charles 20:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't understand the mentality of "if we do this, that means we have to do other things." Especially when it applies to comparing monarchies to republics. I think the big issue is to distinguish the title of "German Emperor" from the distinct title of "German King" held by the Holy Roman Emperors. Given that moving the three German Emperors to the format "Name Ordinal, German Emperor" would allow us to remove the awkward "(Hohenzollern)" disambiguator from our article on the 2nd German Emperor, I think it's worth whatever vague bad precedents it might set (vague precedents already being set by our articles on the Holy Roman Emperors, in any event). john k 00:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.


The opinions above reflect a rough consensus in favor of William I, German Emperor. More importantly, move requests at Frederick III and William III ended. Consistency directs this. Let's regard this renaming round to be over. ObRoy 17:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Full title[edit]

Today Charles removed William's full title on the grounds that this was "not his, this style was adopted in the time of William II". That is patently incorrect, since ALL the titles other than German Emperor had been used for years by William's predecessors. Noel S McFerran 01:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This site gives the history of the styles used by the Hohenzollerns. It gives the following as the titles for all Prussian monarchs after 1866.
Grand form: German Emperor; King of Prussia; Margrave of Brandenburg; Burgrave of Nuremberg; Count of Hohenzollern; Sovereign and Supreme Duke of Silesia and of the County of Glatz; Grand Duke of the Lower Rhine and of Posen; Duke of Saxony, Westphalia, Angaria, Pomerania, Lüneburg, Holstein, Schleswig, Magdeburg, Bremen, Gelderland, Cleves, Jülich, Berg, the Wends, the Kashubs, Krosno, Lauenburg, and Mecklenburg; Landgrave of Hesse and Thuringia; Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia; Prince of Orange; Prince of Rügen, East Frisia, Paderborn, Pyrmont, Halberstadt, Münster, Minden, Osnabrück, Hildesheim, Verden, Kammin, Fulda, Nassua, Mörs; Princely Count of Henneberg; Count of the Mark and Ravensberg, Hohenstein, Tecklenburg, Lingen, Mansfeld, Sigmaringen, and Veringen; Lord of Frankfurt.
Middle form: German Emperor; King of Prussia; Margrave of Brandenburg; Sovereign and Supreme Duke of Silesia; Grand Duke of the Lower Rhine and Posen; Duke of Saxony, Westphalia, Pomerania, Lüneburg, Bremen, Holstein, Schleswig, and Lauenburg; Burgrave of Nuremberg; Landgrave of Hesse; Prince of East Frisia, Osnabrück, Hildesheim, Fulda, and Nassau; Count of Hohenzollern; Lord of Frankfurt.
According to this site, the following titles were newly added (apparently in 1873, but I would guess actually over the course of a period beginning in 1849 and continuing through 1873): Duke of Lüneburg, Holstein, Schleswig, Bremen, and Lauenburg; Landgrave of Hesse; Prince of East Frisia, Pyrmont, Osnabrück, Hildesheim, Verden, Fulda, and Nassau; Count of Mansfeld, Sigmaringen, and Veringen; Lord of Frankfurt.)
Of the new titles, Sigmaringen and Veringen would have been attained with the annexation of the Principalities of Hohenzollern in 1849. Holstein, Schleswig, and Lauenburg had been conquered from Denmark in 1864, and annexed in 1866 (or, possibly, a bit later in the case of Lauenburg). Lüneburg, Bremen, East Frisia, Osnabrück, Hildesheim, and Verden came from the annexation of the Kingdom of Hanover; Hesse and Fulda from that of the Electorate of Hesse; Nassau from that of the Duchy of Nassau; and Frankfurt from that of the free city of Frankfurt. I'm uncertain where Pyrmont and Mansfeld derived from. john k 04:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It is possible that I mixed it up. I remember participating in a discussion about the grand style of William II and am quite sure that changes were made. If I was incorrect, let's work on getting it right. Charles 15:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Link number 1 links to his untalented retard grandson who screwed up The German Empire. - Jimmy da Frogg

Use of "ect."[edit]

You do not use "ect." in any formal essay, especially reference material. this is common sense, and I will be making the necessary adjustments. whoever put "ect." in "full royal title" is a moron —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite apart from the fact that it's spelled "e-t-c"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was This move has been made. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I propose that this article be moved to Wilhelm I, German Emperor. Wilhelm is much more common than William. Also, Franz Joseph is at Franz Joseph and not Francis Joseph and Ivan IV of Russia is not at John IV of Russia. He's one of those cases where the native name is more common in English. Emperor001 (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thoroughly oppose. Francis Joseph should be at that name and Ivan vs John isn't comparable. Charles 22:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't Ivan vs. John comparable? John is the English variation of Ivan and the two Wilhelms are more frequently called Wilhelm, not William. Far more sources say Wilhelm. Emperor001 (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Ivan itself can be seen as an English name. The same is true of Maria/Marie/Mary. Charles 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
So, Anything can be an English name. There are probably people in Enlgish speaking countries named Wilhelm. Emperor001 (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Wilhelm isn't established as an English name though. The reason for Maria/Marie is the heavy influence of Latin and French (the latter being a court and diplomatic language for many, many years). Charles 20:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
What about Ivan? Was there ever a "heavy influence" of Russian?Space Cadet (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Maybe after Doctor Zhivago? Space Cadet (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, it seems to be carried over from French via Yvan, etc. Charles 23:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Support weakly. I believe that he is best known in English as William I, simply because during his life English usage was to translate foreign names. However, via back formation from the name of his grandson, Wilhelm II, I believe that most English users are likely to search for -- or at least find -- him under Wilhelm I. Therefore I support this as an exception, that does not constitute a precedent, outside of his dynasty. Also, please review & consider previous discussions on this topic, especially this one. FactStraight (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Modified support As stated above, the same logic would have Ivan the Terrible renamed John the Terrible. Also, while "Wilhelm II" and "William II" tend to skew search results for "Wilhelm" and "William", a comparison of searches for literature available on Amazon shows 789 books for "Kaiser Wilhelm I" and only 426 books for "Emperor William I". If this article is moved to "Wilhelm I", the disambiguation "German Emperor" or "of Germany" becomes unnecessary, a situation that supports the notability of "Wilhelm I", so this article should be simply renamed Wilhelm I. Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Requested move, 2008[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was This move has been made. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
William I, German EmperorWilhelm I, German Emperor — From all of the sources I've seen, he is more frequently referred to as Wilhelm (even in books where monarchs' names are frequently anglicanized). These sources include the World Book Encyclopedia, my World History Book from High School, and multiple other history books and school textbooks. He seems to be one of those exceptions. —Emperor001 (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose He is at his English name. Charles 00:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
WP Naming conventions do not say we should use the most common English name, but rather the most common form of the name used in English, and Wilhelm is the most common form used in English. Wilhelm meis (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I haven't seen any evidence that Wilhelm I is common in English-language publications (as opposed to his grandson). Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Of course, I support it (see above). Emperor001 (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose Not common. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Unsure at this stage. IMO William II, German Emperor should certainly be moved to Wilhelm..., so if we want consistency (as some have argued), this will have to move too. On the other hand, if (as I'd prefer) we do these case by case, I wouldn't move this article. Andrewa (talk)
  • Support Strongly Taking books that mention him off my bookshelves, I find that Rudolph Sabor's Richard Wagner Der Ring des Nibelungen: a Companion indexes him as "Wilhelm I, Kaiser"; the Collins edition of Cosima Wagner's diaries indexes him as "Wilhelm I, King of Prussia... Emperor of Germany". I have no doubt that "Wilhelm" is correct usage. The only issue is his title. But as mentioned at the discussion for his grandson, you don't need that if the article ae just "Wilhelm" + regnal number.-Peter cohen (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wilhelm is a recent trend, and is not always commonly used. Even at the German courts during the Emperor's reign, he was called "William" when referred to in English. His English name is more common in the English language, and therefore he should be at his English name. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment "Recent" is misleading as it implies it has happened in the last couple of years. Of the two books I've found in my house that mention him, one is over 10 years old, the other over thirty. Both use "Wilhelm" A more accurate phrasing is that "Wilhelm" is the standard modern way of referring to him and that "William" is dated.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NCNT, as Wilhelm is most common form of the name used in English. The same article also prescribes using the disambiguator "German Emperor", so we should move to Wilhelm I, German Emperor. (See Sovereigns 3.2 - but don't get distracted by the use of "William" in that paragraph, "German Emperor" as opposed to "of Germany" is the issue at hand, not the form of the first name.) Wilhelm meis (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Most history books in my collection refer to him as William, so I have a slight preference for the anglicized name. However, I believe that articles on the three emperors should all be at anglicized or German names, not a mixture (ie William I, Frederick III, and Wilhelm II). Olessi (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, his name was Wilhelm, not William. — Albert Krantz ¿? 07:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC).
  • Strong Support, names should not be translated from their languages of origin. It is Wilhelm and Rupprecht and Georg and Ludwig and Franz and Friedrich NOT William, Robert, George, Louis, Francis and Frederick. Are we gone translate all names into their English forms? Mariaflores1955 (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


Any additional comments: Emperor001 (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The tendency to use Wilhelm seems to be a recent trend, especially amongst Americans. It will be interesting if this article remains at William but his grandson is moved to Wilhelm and great-grandson remains at William. — AjaxSmack 02:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.


I would like to apologize for some canvassing I have recently done. I didn't know it was frowned upon. I was only trying to help Wikipedia which I thought would include enlisting others into discussions and polls. Emperor001 (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to apologize about it, it's just that some people may use it as ammunition to have your RM thrown out. It was just a note and nothing you need to worry about me reporting since it was an honest mistake. Charles 00:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for being understanding. Emperor001 (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Names within the article[edit]

Because the article has been moved, all of the Williams in the article should be moved to Wilhelm. Emperor001 (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


There simply aren't any right now. The article looks great and sounds authoritative, but it needs that key foundation. RemiCogan (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, "William the Great" got the ball rolling on this one. I've seen this purported to be a byname of his without references anywhere. I finally found a reference in the article for Wilhelm II, though that itself is unsourced. A nit-pick to be sure, but it could use a reputable reference that he was known as such, especially if it's indeed a popular appelation. RemiCogan (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

pretty cool article[edit]

I was just using SpecialPages Random and came across this article. pretty cool stuff. Keep it up editors! Andyzweb (Talk) 16:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move to William I, German Emperor[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.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wilhelm I, German EmperorWilliam I, German Emperor — Note, this was just listed at WP:RM today. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC) This name of this article was changed from William to Wilhelm on, what appears to be, very little authoritative basis, but rather on personal views. Only two books are quoted; they are not full references and appear to be German works which naturally would use the German name (apologies if this is not correct). However there is a long-established English convention, adopted on English Wikipedia, that European royals are known by their English names. As evidence: Fullbrook (2004)[1] and Coupe (2009)[2] for references to William I,and Fuhrmann (1986)[3] and Hughes (1992)[4] for examples of books that use English names for German royals. I can find no English books that do not follow this convention. I therefore propose the article is renamed back to William I, German Emperor. Feel free to discuss, but please cite authoritative English language sources.


  1. ^ Fulbrook, Mary (2004) A Concise History of Germany, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004, p. 128. ISBN 978-0-521-54071-1.
  2. ^ Coupe, Alison (2009). Germany, Michelin, Greenville (USA), 2009, p. 55. ISBN 978-1-906261-38-2.
  3. ^ Fuhrmann, Horst (1986), Germany in the High Middle Ages c. 1050-1200, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986. ISBN 0-521-31980-3.
  4. ^ Hughes, Michael (1992). Early Modern Germany, 1477-1806., University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1992. ISBN 0-8122-1427-7.

--Bermicourt (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Bermicourt, I agree that there is a convention (generally) re the monarchs, but it is not consistent. For example, in T.C.W.Blanning The French Revolutionary Wars 1787-1802, Oxford University press, 1996, he refers to the kings as Frederick II, Frederick William, Louis XVI, etc. However, when referring to other figures, he does not convert German names into English variations: for example, Carl von Clausewitz remains Carl, not Charles. On page 71, he refers to the "future king Louis Philippe", not Louis Philip. The same conventions occur in James Sheehan, German History, 1770-1866, Oxford AUniversity Press, 1991. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I should add, too, that in Sheehan, Ludwig of Bavaria is used, not Louis or Lewis of Bavaria. Not Franz, but Francis II, not Franz Joseph but Francis Joseph (emperors), Frederick Augustus (not Frederick August) of Saxony, Karl zu Schwarzenberg (not a monarch, but a prince). Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Carl von Clausewitz is an example of the other half of the general rule i.e. the names of non-royals are not translated. For example, Hughes (1992) talks about Friedrick Karl von Schönborn and Georg Forster, but Frederick I-III, Emperor, and Charles I-V, Emperor. Also Augustus seems to be the English variant of August so Frederick Augustus follows the rule. I agree that your other examples do break the rule, but if Sheehan is inconsistent in himself, we can't really draw any hard and fast conclusions from him. I think we agree there is a convention, even if it is not always followed (this is true of proper noun translation in general). My proposal is simply that, for consistency, we follow the convention which appears to be widespread in the literature and largely adopted by Wikipedia already (see the navbox at the bottom of the article). --Bermicourt (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It has been commonly in the past to translate names. Why doing so? Anyone would consider translating the name of Dubya, George Walker Bush into Georg Geher Busch as stupid. Where is the Point in translating Wilhelm into William? I am aware that the Englisch king Charles II. article in the German Wikipedia stands under de:Karl II. (England) but I really doubt that de:Charles Mountbatten-Windsor, Prince of Wales will be moved on de:Karl III. (Vereinigtes Königreich) when he's going to succed his mother (if so). We should throw such oldfashioned ideas from the 19th century over board, this is 2010. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Whether you believe something is stupid or not is irrelevant - see WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. What matters is what authoritative English sources do. The majority use English names for European royals; this seems to have been a convention for decades and still is - see my sources. What does is also irrelevant, although it is interesting that William the Conqueror is called de:Wilhelm I. (England) even though he ruled England, spoke "French" and probably called himself "Guillaume"! Your call for change needs to be directed at the historians who write the books; we are supposed to quote them, not make up our own rules. I have cited some authoritative sources in favour of a move - feel free to do the same. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I find the translation of names ridiculous for one simple reason: it is haphazardly done and what is a must here is ignored there: some names are automatically translated into English, ex: Wilhelm to William and Jean to John, Jeanne to Joan (why not Jane?), while some Marie, Maria do not become Mary, Louis does not become Lewis and Philippe is not turned always into Philip, which could give us a King of the French by the name of Lewis Philip I. On the other hand, some names have no English counterpart & remain in their original form, such as Vitača, a queen of Bosnia and Stjepan Tvrtko I of Bosnia, although his first name Stjepan has been changed to Stephen, which makes for what I call a mixed salad. I have had long-standing arguments on some French Élisabeth becoming Elizabeth while Marie-Thérèse remains so & is not turned into a Mary-Teresa or whatever Thérèse is in English. As Matthiasb is saying, "We should throw such oldfashioned ideas from the 19th century over board, this is 2010." And I will add that Wikipedia does not have to be a sheep dans le troupeau de moutons de Panurge-pedia.
Gute Nacht, Wilhelm!
--Frania W. (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This is why we are proposing to do it systematically; all princes called William or a cognate should be titled under William, since it is common usage for all of them, and most common usage for almost all of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, since William and Mary, Britain has had Dutch or German monarchs. The translation of names becomes commonplace. AJRG (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Comments such as "I don't like it" certainly shouldn't be considered at all. I see at least two such comments in the discussion above (by Frania W. and Matthiasb). The only thing that matters is how his biographers refer to him. If we can rely on his biographers when writing an entire article about him, we can certainly rely on them when choosing a name for the article. If they call him William, we should call him William, regardless of Wiki users who just don't like it. Surtsicna (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Please Surtsicna, do not quote me with words I have not said. What I said was that I find the automatic translation of all names into English "ridiculous". "Wilhelm" leaves no doubt about the nationality of these two German emperors, while some not too erudite readers may at first glance think that they were English princes. And when so intransigent, why should we have Ivan for Russians tsars?
--Frania W. (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Because that's how English language sources call them! Is the common name policy so hard to understand? It's not users' business to pick names just because they like them. They have to use names that are used in the literature. I wasn't quoting you; I was quoting WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Surtsicna (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
PMAnderson, would you mind not misrepresenting what I was trying to show with the use of "Google hits"? a use I am totally against because unreliable as title of same book can be repeated over & over, like someone voting hundreds of times in one election. I maintain that the sacrosanct use of "Google hits" is an absurdity in the making of an encyclopedia, or "pedia" should be removed from Wikipedia & replaced by "hits".
--Frania W. (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I am rather more interested in what you have shown: that even Google agrees strongly with the consensus of reliable sources on William for this Emperor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support as common usage, and systematic and predictable usage. Both these are good things. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)♦
  • Support as common convention used by Wiki and many major authoritative sources right into the 21st century. We need consistency. --Bermicourt (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support for usage and consistency with the way we treat others in his line (I would move Wilhelm II as well, unless it can be shown that usage for him is clearly the other way, which superficial investigation implies is not the case).--Kotniski (talk) 06:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per a slight majority of reliable English language sources. AJRG (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. I don't really like anglicization, but I tend to think it's more common to call him "William" than "Wilhelm" in English. If somebody would conduct a more thorough review of what reliable sources use that would be helpful, though. Bermicourt has presented exactly two examples of works that call him "William". I can add that James Sheehan's Germany 1770-1866; F.R. Bridge's The Great Powers and the European States System 1814-1914, M.S. Anderson's The Ascendancy of Europe 1815-1914, A.J.P. Taylor's The Struggle for Masty in Europe, and John Merriman's A History of Modern Europe also call him William. James Joll's The Origins of the First World War calls him Wilhelm. john k (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The New Cambridge Modern History uses William I consistently; it uses Wilhelm II and William II interchangeably, except in the chapter on the origin of the war. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as the other German Emperor & Prussian Kings go by Frederick & Frederick William (not Friedrich & Friedrich-Wilhelm). GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Because of the involvement of Wilhelm II in World War I, the name Wilhelm is well-known in England and would usually be used in relation to the German emperors. The arguments were covered in the discussion for Wilhelm II. For consistency the 2 emperors should have the same name. Cjc13 (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Surely it's more important that it is consistent with the naming convention of the other 70-odd monarchs of Germany. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • This move request, however, is about his grandfather; it may be that the grandson will differ. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - if that's how the sources refer to him. Surtsicna (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - for reasons given above by myself and also the fact that all English-language ed. do not systematically use the English version of "William" for either "Wilhelm": Wilhelm II: the Kaiser's personal monarchy, 1888-1900, by John C. G. Röhl, Cambridge University Press; Kaiser Wilhelm II, by Christopher Clark, Pearson Education Limited; The Last Kaiser: The Life of Wilhelm II , by Giles MacDonogh, St. Martin's Griffin; New York Review of Books [1]; und so weiter... Wikipedia does not translate to "John" the Russian name "Ivan" for several tsars of Russia, nor "Lewis" for all the "Louis"", kings of France, so why not use the same logic for "Wilhelm"? --Frania W. (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - For reasons given above. I think there is a point in time when the name being changed to it's English equivalent should stop. If this is moved articles like Franz Joseph of Austria will be moved to Francis Joseph of Austria. Also Frania W. makes a point about Ivan and Louis, and I would like to add two more "Alfonso" for Spain and "Afonso" for Portugal not "Alfonse" and "Isabella" and "Isabel" not "Elizabeth". I don't want to argue. I just want to voice my opinion on this subject. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
    I'm deeply unimpressed by the slippery slope argument. We have to draw the line somewhere. Putting it where we anglicize William I but don't anglicize his grandson would seem to leave Alfonso XIII quite safe. "Isabella" is, of course, itself an anglicization/latinization of the Spanish "Isabel". Given that there are several queens of England known as "Isabella," it is pretty ridiculous to claim that as an example where we don't anglicize. Not that Isabella's husband is at Ferdinand, not Fernando. We should follow the usage of reliable sources written in English. This is an ambiguous case, because both forms are used in English, but it seems fairly clear that the anglicized form is more common. At any rate, moving an ambiguous case like this certainly does not imply that we would move articles where the anglicized form is never used. The chances we will end up with Charles I of Romania, say, are minuscule to nil. john k (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
John, please don't give anyone ideas... ! --Frania W. (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
John is absolutely right. The argument that we should call him Wilhelm because we call medieval monarchs of Russia Ivan and medieval monarchs of Castile Alfonso is quite irrelevant. It would imply that we cherry-pick names on the basis of how they sound to us, instead of following scholarly works. We should follow the usage of reliable sources written in English. It's that simple. Surtsicna (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
@Frania W. English usage is guaranteed to outrage your innate sense of style... AJRG (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
A favourite tool used in Wikipedia of his, which Surtsicna has not used this time, is his is the much-proclaimed "Google hit result", which I do not favour because not very academic in my eyes. However, I just tried the game & here is what I found on both William/Wilhelm, German Emperors:
  • William I:
    • 3 250 000
  • Wilhelm I:
    • 146 000
  • William II:
    • 3 560 000
  • Wilhelm II:
    • 19 600 000
Thus, according to "Google hit results", a resounding victory for William I & Wilhelm II - an obvious dilemma for Wikipedia when comes the time to rename Wilhelm II because, as regards W.I & W.II, you can't have one without the other.
No further comment. --Frania W. (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Frania, please comment on the content, not on the contributor. No matter how "unacademic" Google Book Search results are, they are always more helpful than your (or mine) personal preferences. An argument supported by any source is always stronger than an argument based on nothing but one's dislike. Why can't we have William I and Wilhelm II? We have Charles XV and Carl XVI Gustaf; John I, Charles IV and Juan Carlos; Philip VI and Louis Philippe; William I and Willem-Alexander, etc. If sources refer to the grandfather as William and to the grandson as Wilhelm, so should we. Surtsicna (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This was not a personal attack, but a point I was making on how one tool is at times solely used in Wikipedia discussions, then at times totally ignored: I was bringing out the results obtained with that very tool & asking how Wikipedia will get out of the dilemma, because you must be aware that others than myself will bring up Case Wilhelm II in the footsteps of Case Wilhelm I. Their respective reigns were close to each other and in historical time too close to us to anglicise one & keep the other German. Authors/historians are free to use the name they want, but within a single encyclopedia, having two different types of names for grandfather & grandson is disruptive & illogical.
--Frania W. (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
And so quintessentially English... AJRG (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you were trying to prove by that point. Anyway, having two different types of names for grandfather and grandson is as disruptive and illogical as is having Mary, Queen of Scots among X-of-Y-named articles about other Scottish monarchs - yet it's there, because consistency is not more important than common name policy. After all, if they have to be consistent with each other, it should be noted that the number of books that refer to the grandson as William II is not as small as the number of books that refer to the grandfather as Wilhelm I. Nevertheless, we are now discussing the title of this page. Surtsicna (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Frania has now managed to oppose this move because Anglicization is done inconsistently, and because it might be done consistently. Isn't there a limit of one position per !vote?  ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Frania is opposing this move not because "Anglicization is done inconsistently, and because it might be done consistently", but because a modern encyclopedia read worldwide should not be afraid to innovate instead of following blindly what others have "inconsistently" done before.
--Frania W. (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This position is inconsistent with WP:NOR, which is core policy. We should be afraid to innovate, or to perform any original synthesis. Discount accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I do not see how naming one by his/her birth name is original research, specially when some historians do use that original name. Wikipedia is doing what I believe English calls "cherry-picking", checking one "respected" encyclopedia after another & "google-hitting" in order to decide how to name the subject of an article, the result being that it comes out with a mixture that satisfies nobody.
English is spoken here. Just as titling articles Gaius Octavius, Georg Friedrich Händel, Publius Ovidius Naso, Leslie Townes Hope, Alix of Hesse would be original research; it's not what English-speakers call them, although all are birth-names. Therefore it's not what English-speakers will recognise; using that for titles is also policy.
What are we supposed to "Discount accordingly"? My comments? If so, is not that called censure? This is a discussion page in which, for the sake of a real open debate, no stone should be left unturned.
--Frania W. (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Arguments contrary to policy; whatever Cause they serve; we are not here to "innovate" and those who are should be censured until they are willing to cooperate in building a sourced encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
PMA, do you realize the tone you're using when addressing those not agreeing with you? As I said, this is a talk page & anyone with an idea, a question or a proposal should not be intimated into remaining silent by fear of being censured "until willing to cooperate...". We may not agree, but we are all equal in expressing ourselves.
--Frania W. (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Which does not give you the right to use the tone you are using with those you do not agree with.
--Frania W. (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
« De chacun selon ses moyens, à chacun selon ses besoins » AJRG (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose the current proposal which is to move him individually without moving his grandson. I would be open to persuasion if we had a multi-move proposal to move them together. PatGallacher (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The arguments are reverting to WP:POV, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and assumptions about other articles (N.B. the proposal makes no assumption about moving the grandson.) Please quote reliable sources not personal preference. I think you will find that the majority use "William". --Bermicourt (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
English usage today avoids the translation of royal names, but that is a departure from historical practice where names were routinely translated into Latin and then into English. An ugly break between the two is almost unavoidable. AJRG (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
But not that serious - since the break is sometime in the twentieth century, when there are many fewer royalties (and many of them are English to begin with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Multiple move proposals can be made, the current move proposal assumes that his grandson should not be moved. Consistency is a legitimate objective in the naming of articles, these 2 rulers are very closely linked. PatGallacher (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Consistency is a legitimate consideration. It cuts both ways; is it more important to be consistent with the subject's grandson or with his brother, Frederick William IV of Prussia (and William I of the Netherlands)?
  • But whether the consistency between grandfather and grandson is vital - more important than recognizability (to anglophones), which the present title lacks, can better be discussed when and if a RM on the grandson is made. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but in my view it ought to be discussed now. My position is that the two emperors should either be moved together or not at all, I am therefore opposed to the current proposal. PatGallacher (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
But why should this W. be consistent with W.II, and not with his immediate predecessor and successor, both of which have Anglicized names? Surely EN->DE->EN->DE is less consistent than EN->EN->EN->DE?--Kotniski (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
No, because current English usage differs from historical English usage. We have Philip II of Spain and William of Orange, because that's what reliable sources call them. AJRG (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Matthead, is that why you are opposing this move? Wow! What do those 21st century non-German monarchs have to do with a 19th century German monarchs? Absolutely nothing. English language sources call them Juan Carlos and Beatrix while they call this man William - that's all English usage! Surtsicna (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Stay cool! This proposal is only about William; it makes no presumption about his grandson, grandmother or distant Spanish cousin! --Bermicourt (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator's research and WP:UE. — AjaxSmack 21:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. There was a book published in 2009 under the title "Kaiser Wilhelm I" [2]. This is a reprint of a translation from a German book but it does indicate the use of Wilheim in English books. Cjc13 (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    • No, it indicates the peculiar habits of translators. In this case, the desire to keep the title of the 1918 original text, ao that the public-domain translation can be found on the web, is perfectly intelligible; BiblioBazaar books need the publicity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
"Translators have peculiar habits" & "publishing houses need publicity", so the title brought forth by Cjc13 must be discounted as must Wilhelm I? --Frania W. (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's translationese, not representative of English usage; if that's the best one can find by going to Amazon and cherry-picking the results for one particular outcome, Wilhelm I must be even rarer in English than I thought. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
It is true that it is one of the few biographies of him in English. There are more about his grandson [3]. Cjc13 (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
And all the other lives in English, by Simon, Smith, Forbes, and Wiegler, call him William I; one of them is even translated from the German. If we were discussing his grandson, the question of whether to move would be much more doubtful, since both forms are in common usage - and the issue would be most common usage against consistency. Policy favors both.
But we are not discussing the grandson, except as contrast. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support weakly. (Re-posting my argument on this proposed move in June 2008, above, where I noted:) I believe that he is best known in English as William I, simply because during his life English usage was to translate foreign names. However, via back formation from the name of his grandson, Wilhelm II, I believe that most English users are likely to search for -- or at least find -- him under Wilhelm I. Therefore I support this as an exception, that does not constitute a precedent, outside of his dynasty. Also, please review & consider previous discussions on this topic, especially this one. FactStraight (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Every encyclopedia has a style guide and I think that Anglicized names should be used for European monarchs where and when possible particularly if they were indeed used. Regarding William II, there is a statue that was a gift from him of William III (of Orange) in front of Kensington Palace which gives his name as "William II, German Emperor and King of Prussia". Seven Letters 00:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I propose that the name remain 'Wilhelm,' rather than William. The idea that the article be called 'William I' is absurd. During his own lifetime, he was styled and referred to as 'Wilhelm'; this was his personal and dynastic name, not 'William.' We don't refer to Ivan IV of Russia/ the Terrible/Vasilyevich as 'John IV of Russia' or 'John IV Son of Basil.' Doesn't anyone else see the absurdity of this proposed move? The history books may call him 'William,' but that doesn't make them right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MDunn1937 (talkcontribs) 04:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nor are they wrong; but as the authoritative sources, they're what Wikipedia follows.--Kotniski (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
No, you see, they are wrong. They may be authoritative, but they are not infallible. Simply because the English version of his name was 'William' does not mean that a German leader should be referred to as such. He was named Wilhelm, not William. It's actually a prime example of cultural arrogance to claim the right to call persons of other nationalities by the translated versions of their names. Is Juan Carlos I normally referred to as 'John Charles I' in the news? Unless I'm wrong, he's not. Therefore, the argument that authoritative works refer to this person as 'William' fails, it being common practice in the past to translate names to the respective language of the translator. Consequently, the implication is that books written during the 19th/20th centuries, when this practice was commonplace, are justified because Wilhelm lived in the 1800s. I'm surprised that no one else appears to recognise how ridiculous, and even mildly offensive, this is. Referring to foreign persons of note by their birth-names may be a relatively new practise that some might see as an exercise in political correctness, however, in this instance, I believe that this is just that, correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Many (most?) people from history - even other English people, if you go far enough back - have their names spelt and spoken differently from the way they themselves spelt or spoke them. It's just the way the English language does things (and other languages do the same thing). One day perhaps people will come around to doing it the way you think of as "correct" - when they do, Wikipedia will naturally follow.--Kotniski (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
To anonymous IP who wrote: "I'm surprised that no one else appears to recognise how ridiculous, and even mildly offensive, this is." Please read the discussion. Some strongly opposed the move from "Wilhelm" to "William".
--Frania W. (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC).
To understand why English usage was as it was (modern usage differs), you need to notice that the current British monarchy were originally German and that an earlier monarch was Dutch. Names were translated in deference to public sentiment. Several other empires have routinely translated the name of the ruler into local forms, at least as far back as Xerxes. AJRG (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
No one would balk at Guillaume I, empereur allemand in French or Isabel II de Reino Unido in Spanish... English, however, must always bend to non-English forms? Seven Letters 16:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Protesting that "I just don't like it" is not an argument. Translating foreign names, especially of royals, is not "cultural arrogance" - everyone does it. A German colleague tried to suggest the English were arrogant for going around the world renaming places into English (Munich, Rhine, Black Forest, etc) until I pointed out that Germans did exactly the same (Schottland, Kapstadt, Großbrittanien) as did the French (Angleterre, Allemagne, Londres), whereupon he ate some humble pie. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention "Elisabeth II". (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress, 2010[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Wilhelm II, German Emperor which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Si Trew (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Messy - Assassination Attempts / Anti-Socialist Laws[edit]

When I was reading the article, I found the divide between Assassination Attempts and Anti-Socialist Laws a bit messy - both mention that the second assasin died of his self-inflicted wounds. When I read it a second time, it jarred as I had thought that I had read it already in the article. Is there a way to tidy this up? Could we have the fully story of the assassin kept to Assassination Attempts and then not mention again under Anti-Socialist Laws that the assassin died? I realise that the point of mentioning it again was that he couldn't be interegated about his motives, but that could easily be put into the Assassination Attempts without it detracting from the Anti-Socialist laws section and the sections would flow better. A trivial point maybe, but my tuppence. DewiMR (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Death info?[edit]

No mention of his death - unless I'm missing something. There seems to be about a decade missing ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sclebo05 (talkcontribs) 02:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

What's with the title?[edit]

Why he is called "William I" and his grandson "Wilhelm II". Shouldn't there exist a standardization of names? --Lecen (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Why can't people figure out if his name was "Wilhelm" or "William" ?[edit]

His name was "Wilhelm". Why is Wilhelm the First called "William I" and Wilhelm the Second called "Wilhelm II"? Inconsistent in choosing what to change the name of historical characters to...

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William I, German Emperor. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)