Talk:Christoph Prinz zu Schleswig-Holstein

Prince or Duke???
I don't get it, he is the head of the House of Schleswig-Holstein and it's a ducal house, why isn't he named (titular) "Duke" in stead of "Prince"??? Demophon (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * He only uses the title Prince like Eduard, Prince of Anhalt. - dwc lr (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But why do they do that? There are also a lot of current heads of (grand)-ducal houses in Germany who are named Duke (for example the Duke of Mecklenburg), as it should be. I don't get it. Demophon (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * With Mecklenburg and Oldenburg all members of the House are Dukes while I think the other (grand-)/ducal houses hold the title prince as there main title. The only other head of house who I believe has assumed the ducal title is Konrad of Saxe-Meiningen though I believe Christoph's father used the title Duke, personal choice I suppose? - dwc lr (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What we need is a citation for prince. Theroff calls him duke. john k (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * His website calls him prince. - dwc lr (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. john k (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The name of the man is Christoph Prinz zu Schleswig-Holstein and not Christoph, Prince of Schleswig-Holstein. His father was called "Herzog Peter" by the people but in fact his correct surname was Prinz zu Schleswig-Holstein, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.91.129.7 (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please give a citation to support this. 62.64.152.154 (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Germany abolished their nobility
So why does this article still treat him like he's a prince, unless ", Prince of Schleswig-Holstein" is his last name? Should we change it to "Christoph [LAST NAME]"?
 * WP goes by how a subject is known, not by what is legally correct. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oldenburgs
The House of Oldenburg genealogically includes Queen Margrethe II of Denmark and Prince Charles of Wales, whether or not their families have chosen to call themselves otherwise. Local policy at royal courts, or even legal registration of family names, should not be substituted for genealogical facts, and such well-referenced facts should not be removed from this article. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The House of Oldenburg has ceased to exist for Denmark. The royal family there is currently of the House of Glücksburg, also known as Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg that is descended from King Christian III of Denmark. However, as the elder line of the House of Oldenburg became extinct in the 19th century, the House of Glücksburg is now the senior surviving branch of the House of Oldenburg. Therefore. since 1863, Denmark's royal family no longer belongs to the House of Oldenburg, but to its cadet branch. SergeWoodzing is wrong to insist on using the Oldenburg designation with both Denmark and the heir to the British throne. In the latter case, a royal proclamation insisted that the House of the British throne be henceforth called Windsor, bypassing any hereditary connection with Prince Philip's genealogy. I am not going to argue with a person (SergeWoodzing) who appears to have no common sense, and instead relies on ignorance of the facts. --Skol fir (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're both right. Denmark chooses to refer to its reigning dynasty as the House of Glucksborg and the Commonwealth Realms have declared their heir apparent is to be referred to as a member of the House of Windsor. No one disputes those nations' right to so act. Nonetheless, members of both families are, like the reigning and formerly reigning dynasties of Greece, Norway, Russia, grand ducal Oldenburg and ducal Schleswig-Holstein, patrilineally members of the House of Oldenburg. The latter is a genealogical fact. Similarly, the reigning and formerly reigning dynasties of Luxembourg, Spain and Portugal, which define themselves as the House of Nassau, of Bourbon and of Braganza, respectively, are also patrilineally branches of the House of Capet. That fact diminishes in relevance as Europe's monarchies substitute absolute for male-line primogeniture, and proceed to accumulate national history according to that principle. But European dynasties and families have, for the most part, been defined legally and culturally as patrilineal since the Middle Ages and before, and in many ways that tradition persists, which makes it of ongoing historical, cultural and political interest (some find it noteworthy that, as the Habsburgs and Hohenzollerns vanished from the maps of Europe in the 20th century, the obscure Glucksburgs were accumulating thrones and, when added to their Oldenburg kinsmen, rival the Welfs of Saxony, the Coburg branch especially, for recent dynastic aggrandizement). It's not Wikipedia's role to accelerate eradication of sexism by re-writing history before the page has finished turning. Patience, we're getting there... FactStraight (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this constructive comment! Other than that, I'm not inclined to discuss matters with anyone (your predecessor here) who chooses to be personally insulting. The cited references may speak for themselves. It would hardly be appropriate for anyone to remove them. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

cart before horse?

 * As a member of highest German nobility, he is the current titular Duke of Schleswig-Holstein and Duke of Glücksburg, traditionally styled as His Highness.

Other members of highest German nobility are not thereby titular Dukes of anything. I'd make it
 * As the current titular Duke of Schleswig-Holstein and Duke of Glücksburg, he is a member of highest German nobility, traditionally styled as His Highness.

or
 * As the current titular Duke of Schleswig-Holstein and Duke of Glücksburg, traditionally styled as His Highness, he is a member of highest German nobility.

—Tamfang (talk) 08:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do it! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with SergeWoodzing. 62.64.152.154 (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Removed irrelevant genealogy
I rm additions mentioning irrelevant persons. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, irrelevant names have been added to this article, I removed them and an edit war began. I wrote to the user now and see no need to leave that name-dropping in there for another 24 hours.. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Same again! Will remove gain after writing to user. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Not spam
It is not spam to mention the name of all 4 persons in the caption under an image with only 4 persons. Reverting. Also please see Talk:Indian Love Call. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please discuss here. User_talk:SergeWoodzing.Domdeparis (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop referring to my talk page, which I have asked you to stay away from with these spam accusations! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Image removed
thumb|Christoph and Elisabeth with guests at Grünholz in 2010.

Please reinstate this valuable image which was removed for no apparent reason. The only five images of this man and his wife were taken on this same day and are in the Commons collection that this one comes from. It is my objective opinion that rare historical photos like this one are relevant to articles about notable people, no matter what the names are of other individuals in them. As free images, these are few and far between. This one was specifically OK'd here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed it among other other photas in other articles added by a person (SW writing above) with coi to the photo and a person in it. I can not see the importance of this photo here. Nice private photo but not encyclopedic. I let to others to look and hope sw will do so too. Adville (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with, nice cover photo but not useful for an encyclopedia.   Dr Strauss   talk   21:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Notability
This article puzzles me. The subject seems to be a duke (though he calls himself a prince) within a Prussian or German or possibly Danish system of such ranks. If Prussian, Prussia itself doesn't exist; if German, the system doesn't exist; if Danish, I really don't know (I'm baffled by Wikipedia's write-up). He's related to other people and he's rich. What am I missing? -- Hoary (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia generally recognizes honorary German titles of royalty and nobility which no longer exist legally since 1918. Same goes for titles from French & Italian history, though they are all as defunct today as e.g. titles of nobility in Sweden. the word titular is key.
 * Christoph's princely title, as per what Germany allows after 1918, is included in his legal name Christoph Prinz zu Schleswig-Holstein (see e.g. here) as a given name recorded as such by the German Government. That's what many members of formally royal and noble families have been allowed to do and have done, with their names, in Germany. Actual aspiration today to any legitimate titles there is illegal. So, the duchy is defunct since 1918, but it is considered polite to call him a duke anyway, based on his inheritance.
 * The House of Oldenburg, of which Christoph is the genealogical head, has been, and still is, Danish royalty since the ascention in 1448 of Christian I of Denmark to that throne. The primary male branch of that dynasty to which Christoph belongs has actually never ceased to continue to be Danish royalty.
 * For people interested in royal genealogy Christoph is a VIP due to his dynasty's standing in European history.
 * Personally, I do not believe WP should write about many of these people as if they still had legitimate titles.
 * That's all I have for now in reply to this. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * PS As a land-owner and business executive (see article text), and in comparison with thiusands of other notable  people we have here, I believe he's notable enough with or without the titles. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! So he is a Prince (just as this fellow was), but he's not an actual prince. (Rather as you're a Serge but, if I may, you're not serge.) The German title would have been meaningless since three decades before he was even born; but if I understand correctly, Denmark still has a "nobility" and he's a member of this. He does indeed seem to be a significant land-owner, but the article says little about this. If he's significant as important in a company, it's odd that GLC Glücksburg Consulting Group and Glücksburg Consulting Group are both red links, the disambiguation page GLC doesn't mention it, the German disambiguation page de:GLC doesn't, and indeed there doesn't seem to be an article about it in de:WP. (Actually there's no article about him there either.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments about a musician and about me don't seem relevant to this page. I find them confusing. I have nothing to add at this time. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I think what User:Hoary is saying is that his use of Prince as a name is not the same as being a prince and that as such his notabilty would not come from a title that has no legal existence any more. According to this German_nobility the titles should be included in the surname and not used as a title as such and its usage is colloquial and as per WP:NCNOB For claimants to titles which have been suppressed, as with the dukes of Bavaria, follow the general article titling policy.. So the use of Prince in the title should meet WP:COMMONNAME which it probably does but there is no official recognition by Wikipedia of any honorary German title outside of it being a common name. I have left a message on the Royalty and Nobility project page to have a bit more expert input. WP:WikiProject_Royalty_and_Nobility. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "is a Prince" ... "you're a Serge" - confusing. Get it? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Um I think I do, in the same way I am a Dom but not a dom. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's it. Thank you, Dom from Paris. And I'm sorry that my writing was unclear. (Incidentally, I think you wanted to point interested parties to this discussion.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems that a large portion of jurists think that there are no young persons ahead of him for the Russian throne (or only George Mikhailovitch, who is in a morganatic marriage). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.249.44.144 (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Rollback of engagement
I rolled back new info about an engagement of one of his sons. Trivial & no source. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Need article on son?
The main justification for this article was his headship of one of Europe's oldest and most illustrious dynasties. Ergo, we now need an article on his eldest son, who has inherited that position. I am red-linking his name. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Being the son of his father does not create notability. If there isn't enough independent notability for this person aside from their familial connection, it may be more appropriate to have a redirect to House of Glücksburg rather than a separate article. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not all I mentioned. Read it again. please! Don't miss "headship" or "position" next time. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Never going to happen here. The people with the inclination are slowly migrating to build new topic specific Wiki projects. Probably even this article could be deleted in future, his predecessors was deleted Articles for deletion/Peter, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein and while recreated also may not last. ÆtübérEd (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * When it comes to the genealogical heads of ancient & still major reigning families, I believe such prophecies are neither realistic, correct nor helpful. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For reigning families, you are correct. Tha page Charles III will endure as long as Wikipedia itself exists. But families who are just commoners for now more than 100 years, it just do not matter who the "head" of the family is. It is just a position that is nowhere oficially recognised and comes with no rights or obligations whatsoever. Whenever someone tries to create such page, it will be thoroughly scrutinised and tested for notability as being the "head" of a notable family is just inherited notability which does not fulfill any notability criteria. -- Theoreticalmawi (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Another personal prediction. Not interesting. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)