Talk:Carl, Duke of Württemberg

Article title & style
I'm not familiar with this subject, but Mewulwe's move and edits appear to be perfectly correct. He was born after the abolition of the nobility. He was never an "official" duke. Therefore he should be presented as Carl Herzog von Württemberg and not as a Duke, because he isn't one. If there is an overwhelming preponderance of sources that refer to him as Duke by WP:COMMONNAME, that might change my opinion, but there needs to be evidence presented of that. Furthermore, there isn't even any evidence presented in the (current) article that he's an active pretender, or wants to be Duke or restore the German nobility or anything. SnowFire (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not hugely familiar either, but I've just tried the following searches to see what comes up:
 * "Carl Herzog von Wurttemberg, Head of House -Duke" - which received 4510 Google hits (many of them German) and 8 hits on Google Books.
 * "Carl Duke of Wurttemberg, Head of House -Herzog" - which received 3710 Google hits and a surprising 664 hits on Google Books.
 * More research is needed, as it's difficult to separate out English and German sources, but it looks like English sources use both forms of title and book sources overwhelmingly use the "Duke of" form. My only direct experience of this kind of thing was official Anglo-German engagements when we always referred to "Prince Heinrich" of Hanover when he was involved. Perhaps it's a British thing because we're more comfortable with the nobility, albeit most of them now are politically-appointed cronies, lol. Bermicourt (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The 82.132... IPs and the 109.144.2... IPs are sock puppets of long-term hoaxer and block evader User:Qais13. Those edits should not have been proxied in by others. DrKay (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC) 21:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Either way, Meluwe has a long history of adding disputed text and reverting other editors without a consensus being reached first. Despite claiming that he's stated his view and others haven't, he hasn't responded to my findings above or waited for other editors to contribute constructively to the debate. Bermicourt (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How long am I supposed to wait? I waited 6 days after my last revert. Since when do you need a consensus for an edit just because others revert without discussing? Go ask them to come here if they revert again. To your findings, I can only say that I don't think it's relevant what English sources use. We are not here to perpetuate falsehoods, no matter how common they may be. It is simply wrong to translate names as if they were titles when they aren't. Any English source doing that is either just ignorant of the fact, or is deliberately ignoring it due to monarchical bias. Mewulwe (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In English the German royals are referred to by the titles see for example in coverage of Duke Carl’s son’s funeral by English sources. How do we even know just Herzog von Württemberg is his legal surname or are we just assuming because this is the primary title (I believe the legal German surname of the Hanoverians is Prinz von Hannover Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg Königlicher Prinz von Großbritannien und Irland). And for example Alexander, Margrave of Meissen was born Alexander Afif, then in 1970s seemed to have become Alexander Prinz von Sachsen-Gessaphe, then in the 1990s Alexander Prinz von Sachsen (or maybe Prinz von Sachsen Herzog zu Sachsen) and now he uses the title Markgraf von Meissen and sources provide it to him despite the fact his legal surname is maybe Prinz von Sachsen Herzog zu Sachsen or just Prinz von Sachsen. We should be following English usage to help the readers, by all means add in text to the effect German nobility was legally abolished and titles became surnames though. - dwc lr (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no problem personally with giving both the English and German names. The point of my edit summary on 7 Sept was not to remove the common name in English, but to point out that his 'full name' is not just his Christian names. His 'full name' includes his surname. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It's been the practice on Wikipedia to use royalty infoboxes even for bios of pretenders. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Mewulwe, please look at coverage of his granddaughters wedding in English sources eg The Mirror, People Magazine, Daily Mail, these use Duke/Duchess titles and they are not “monarchist” sources they simply reflect the practice of English language sources. Look how Georg-Constantin of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach was referred to following his death earlier this year, it’s not as ‘Prinz von Sachsen-Weimar-Eisenach’ but as Prince of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach. For example BBC News, Daily Mail, The Times. I’m more than happy for you to add some text to the article explaining that legally in Germany titles became part of the surname, but this article should follow standard English practice which I think is clear, if you have evidence to the contrary please discuss. If not I will change the article back. - dwc lr (talk) 08:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not a matter of style but of fact, e.g. using "Prince" here implies that Prinz is not just a name but a title, which is just wrong (as if you were translating the name of Steffi Graf into Steffi Count). As I said above, "Any English source doing that is either just ignorant of the fact, or is deliberately ignoring it due to monarchical bias." Mewulwe (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your anti-monarchist bias does not make you the arbiter of consensus.LE (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Contentious move
. Would you please revert your move. As you are well aware, it is contentious and there is not yet a consensus for it. Thank you. Bermicourt (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How is it contentious? Is there any counter-position I have not addressed? Mewulwe (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's clear from the above discussion, in which you took part, that there are different views and no consensus has yet been achieved. So please would you revert it and let's follow the normal Wikipedia guidelines. Bermicourt (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's clear? No, I have a different view. So I guess no consensus has been achieved about no consensus having been achieved. See how that works? Mewulwe (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Carl's heir-apparent
I'm assuming that Wilhelm is Carl's grandson, the son of the late Friedrich. Perhaps we should mention/clarify that in the article? GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Carl, Duke of Wurttemburg.jpg