This person does not have any styles or titles, such things were abolished in germany in 1919 and in russia at the same time

He was never a "Royal" or "Imperial" "Highness", such things have not existed in Russia or Germany for nearly 100 years.Smeat75 (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several reliable sources in different languages have been added to the article documenting the post-1919 attribution or use of Royal and/or Imperial Highness for Franz Wilhelm by experts in international titulature; his conversion at the time of marriage to the Russian Orthodox Church; his former position as dynastic consort to the heiress presumptive of the House of Romanov's claim to the former Imperial Russian throne; and his current, notable position as founder of the patriline through which that claim passes via Grand Duke George Mikailovich of Russia, Prince of Prussia. FactStraight (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Prince Franz Wilhelm of Prussia. 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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

name is not a title

There has been no "Prince of Prussia", or in fact any German nobility, since the Weimar constitution of 1919. "Prinz von Preußen" is nothing but a surname, please do not translate it. -- Seelefant (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 December 2022

– The Weimar Constitution of 1919 abolished in Article 109 any and all royal and aristocratic prerogatives, including titles. The words of the title were allowed to be retained as part of the family name, which is functionally just that - a regular, "bourgeois" surname that should not be translated, and not be put before the first name, title-style. These persons, born after 1919, are not, have never been, and will never be German princes, no more than a contemporary person carrying the name of "Müller" thereby retains the legal requirements to make and sell bread. Germany is a republic, not a constitutional monarchy. There are no German "princes" today, no matter what some people fancy to call themselves. This should be changed (edit: in accordance with WP:NCROY "do not use dissolved or defunct titles"), and out of respect for Germany's democratic constitution, so not to give the impression that Wikipedia is lending encyclopedic credence to aristocratic pretense. -- Seelefant (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 17:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, the sources cited in the article call him Prince Franz Wilhelm. Since you are the one proposing a change, it is expected that you should provide a reasoning for the change that is in line with the project's policy. I see no difference between one rich person going by a silly name and another rich person going by a silly name; the policy treats them the same. Surtsicna (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's look at the given sources!
  • I don't have a printed edition of Burke's Peerage at hand, but the online version sure does not list Germans among the "Royal families of Europe".
  • The Almanach de Gotha is even cited in its 1944, nazified ("arianized") version, yuck! So let's better look at its successors. One of them has none other sitting on their comittee than "Prince" and "Duke" Wilhelm of Prussia, and "of Mecklenburg"! Not a neutral source at all. The other successor is run by a registered association of (former) nobles with "Prince" Alfred v. Schönburg-Hartenstein as its president. This is pure self service and absolutely worthless to establish a "common name".
  • The English weblinks given are sparse and many are kind of iffy. I think most people will agree that sites like "constantinianorder.org", "imperialhouse.ru", "preussen.de", or "haus-preussen.de" are partisan and cannot establish a general use or "common name", the last one (archived) even referred to the late Michael von Preußen as "his royal highness" which is rather sketchy, legally speaking.
  • The Irish Times uses "Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preussen", sans the comma and with the "Prince" in the back where it belongs.
  • CNN explicitely mentions that "Prince of Prussia" is his legal surname, the mentioning of a "ceremonial title" is a private matter that has no basis in law.
  • "Der Spiegel" in its English edition also loses the comma and puts the Prince in the back.
  • The Guardian does the same, and explicitely mentions "it is considered to be part of his surname, not a title".
I have to say, the more I look into this, the more spurious your claim becomes. -- Seelefant (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not they are royal is of no consequence to what they are called in sources and hence what Wikipedia should call them; Prince is not royal either. The English-language media sources you have examined there are obviously not supportive of the proposed titles but of the present. Even the Irish Times uses the translated "Prince of Prussia" rather than "Prinz von Preussen", as you claim in your comment. The Spiegel article refers to Georg Friedrich exactly the same as our article: Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia. Therefore I fail to see how you think these make my point look spurious. Surtsicna (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you care to explain how or why the likes of CNN, The Guardian, The Irish Times, and Der Spiegel are "a joke"? Surtsicna (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seelefant, you have shown it to be common indeed. As it happens, I do not care whether it is in the front or in the back. It seems that a compromise is on the horizont. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay, up above there is a discussion about usage in sources. CNN, The Guardian, the English version of Der Spiegel, and the Irish Times are cited. All use the translated "Prince of Prussia". Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are just the sources in the article. There are other sources, like the New York Times, Art Newspaper, Foreign Policy, ArtNet, Inside Hook, and countless German ones that strictly call him "Prinz von Preussen". JoelleJay (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, all but one of those you cited call him "the prince" after introducing him as "Prinz von Preussen". There are also uncited sources calling Georg Friedrich Prince of Prussia, including Reuters, Financial Times, ABC News, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, and The Independent. The overall usage seems to be only slightly in favor of "Prince of Prussia" but the difference in quality of the sources is significant. Given that the coverage in English is extensive, it is reasonable (and in accordance with policy) to set aside the German sources, which obviously will use the German-language titlename. I have found two books discussing Georg Friedrich in some detail, one calling him Prince of Prussia and one calling him Prinz von Preußen instead. I have removed supposed royal titles from quite a few articles when they appeared to be uncommon (example) but this does not seem to be such a case. Surtsicna (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NYT and InsideHook do not call him a "prince", and FP explicitly disclaims "prince" as a real title, but all that is irrelevant since this is only about his name. I recognize that there are English sources--perhaps even edging on a majority--that call him "GF, PoP" (although we can disregard the FT source as "opinion" (can't be used for BLPs), and ABC is a reprint of a Spiegel International piece (as we've already discussed that they use "Georg Friedrich Prince of Prussia")), but IMO when both a "translated" (Google appears to automatically translate any name that is followed by a capitalized title in a foreign language to "NAME[comma] translated title" in English despite no comma existing in the original, which might be the origin of some of these cases) and non-translated version of a name appear regularly in English media, we ought to observe the native form, especially if it relieves confusion over someone's legal position. JoelleJay (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would not rely on having the titlename in German to clarify to the readers that the subject is not actually a prince. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, this must be spelled out in the text very clearly. Besides, the preponderance of use of the translated "Prince of Prussia" makes it inevitable that it should be included in the lead in one form or another anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I think you know where I stand on emphasizing the status of defunct titles in article text ;) And of course, we should have the translation in the lead somewhere. JoelleJay (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You expressed an opinion when you said "return to common name" while moving the pages back to their previous titles. Avilich (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply because the moves had not been discussed, as I pointed out on Seelefant's talkpage. And there has been strenuous opposition to these sorts of moves in the past. What my personal opinion is and what consensus is are two completely different things. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the hybrid version is common in English-language sources. Of the sources cited above, the majority do not use it. Funnily enough, the one that does is an originally German newspaper. Since the argument for having Prince of Prussia instead of Prinz von Preußen is the WP:COMMONNAME policy, the comma can/should be dropped if it is not commonly used. Surtsicna (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I support COMMONNAME, but I'm afraid I do not accept that usage of bad English by sources is a good reason for an encyclopaedia to use it, particularly not if that bad English is being used by a publication (even one in English) from a country where English is not the native language. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SnowFire, how has the nominator indicated that the proposed titles reflect common usage in English? Literally each English language source they cited calls these men "Prince of Prussia". Surtsicna (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sold by JoelleJay's comments above. More generally, I would tend to place a smaller emphasis on sources that are too directly tied to their status as nobility, and prefer neutral newspaper references to be used if possible. SnowFire (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is an unreasonable expectation given that their only claim to notability is their supposed status as nobility. Surtsicna (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you would be wise to focus on the WP:COMMONNAME portion of your argument - if there is any to be made. The WP:NCROY argument is voided by "unless this is what the majority of reliable sources use"; this is because WP:NCROY, being a guideline, cannot contradict WP:COMMONNAME, which is a policy. The rest is just fluff; Wikipedia is not one bit obligated to pay heed to passports or Germany's laws. Surtsicna (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Seelefant, just a comment as a page mover. I am not sure what's the norm on dewiki when it comes to requested move discussions, but this is the second time I have observed a primarily dewiki editor executing page moves before the closure of a Requested move discussion in a week (first instance being at Talk:Heinrich_Reuss#Requested_move_7_December_2022). There is a process for Requested Move discussions, in which involved editors are actively discouraged from closing the discussions they are participating in, as well as making unilateral moves before the closure of the discussions (see the messaging on the article banner). The reversion of your moves by an admin here a couple of hours ago was done in accordance to this. – robertsky (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, noted. Dewiki indeed has significantly fewer, and less formal procedures than this. I'm just immensely frustrated by being stuck here in a status quo, where half of the opposing arguments revolve around German vs. anglicized names, which isn't even my main point, and some editors stubbornly claiming that a move should not occur due to WP:COMMONNAME, which I think very obviously flies in the face of what the given sources are saying - at least those that are not part of a ridiculous aristocratic circle-jerk. -- Seelefant (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Categories