Talk:Georg Alexander, Duke of Mecklenburg

Dubious
I would like to see how this source ("BZG") came to the conclusion that Georg Alexander is head of a house which is possibly extinct. Charles 18:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So your still disputing that he was head of the house or that he only "claimed" the position or that it was "disputed"? Did I not ask you when you first put in your "neutral" language for sources. I didn't immediately revert I waited to see if you would reply. You haven't provided any sources yet here you are again disputing verifiable information. In the past you didn't provide any sources for Georg Borwin belonging to the "House of Carlow" even though when I tried to remove it you reverted me. You didn't provide any sources for the style HSH when I corrected it to HH you reverted me. So dubious that GA was head of the house no. Although you haven't been able to support anything you've said regarding this house with sources so maybe your posts on this subject should come with a dubious tag as standard. - dwc lr (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You obviously need a lesson in civility. This is not about me and past issues with sources, it is about the authority of that source alone to support that someone is the head of an arguably extinct royal house. Keep your uncivil comments to yourself, understand? You haven't been able to give proof for something for which you require proof against. As far as facts go, it is only a claim and that is the only verifiable fact there is. Charles 23:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't know why you can't accept facts. They are heads of the House. The article cites a book on the history of Mecklenburg-Strelitz which has a chapter dedicated to the House. You keep mentioning the word extinct yet you are not able to cite a single source I might as well remove the dubious tag now. Do you have a source or not? - dwc lr (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no source for demorganatization, just the use of a title. Are you saying that demorganatization happened by default "just because"? People can call themselves whatever they want but it does not make it true. If there are no sources for either side than it is simply a claim. I said "arguably extinct" because I have not claimed to be in a position to settle a dynastic claim as certain or not. It is you who needs to learn that fact is only to be stated where it exists without a doubt outside of your opinion. You're only a Wikipedia editor and not more, not someone who has the final say to declare an absolute pretender to defunct throne. It really goes to show since Mecklenburg-Schwerin was removed. Do you have a source or not for the demorganatization of the Carlow branch and did you have a source when you were insisting he was the titular Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin or were you allowed to do that just because you are DWC LR and can? Charles 03:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * His father was recognised as Head of the House by Schwerin males. Yes I'm only a Wikipedia editor and as such I'm only adding things that can be sourced and that are verifiable such as Georg Alexander was head of the House. I removed the titular GD of M-Schwerin from the Borwin article because I didn't have a source but why should I let not having a source stop me right (House of Carlow, HSH, position disputed etc.). You have no sources to dispute that he was head of the House yet you add the dubious tag. It's all rather ridiculous, really your disputing something and you have nothing to back up what your saying with, your rapidly losing credibility. Where are you getting your information from is it Alt talk Royalty? Yes you and I are only Wikipedia editors but why do you take things you see on that newsgroup and believe it to be true or that it it's some sort of authority on Royal subjects. You haven't been able to justify placing a dubious tag and you have nothing to dispute it with other than your personal opinion on the matter so I'm going to remove it. Georg Alexander as head of the house can be sourced. - dwc lr (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen a single authoritative source say that any of the Carlows were indisputably and solely heads of the House of Mecklenburg. What's this with Schwerin males apparently recognizing the Carlow branch as heads of the Strelitz line? The fact of the matter is as follows: Adoption does not change ones blood and demorganatization is a hard case to prove in all instances. It is wholly and complete neutral to make statements such as: so-and-so claimed the throne of Mecklenburg or so-and-so was a pretender to the throne of Mecklenburg. The issue is, however, when you start stating things definitively (as you did for the claim to Mecklenburg-Schwerin) when there are no authoritative sources to say that without a doubt as you have been doing and as you seemingly have always done. Also, do you have a source definitively stating that the head of one house separated the two claims and recognized what was certainly initially a morganatic line as an equal head of the Nikloting dynasty? Charles 22:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Every word in this article and the others, is and can be sourced that is why for the time being the recognition by Schwerin is not in the article. There are no issues with neutrally in the articles it is you who is disputing their position and yet you have no sources to back up that position. Yes I made an edit to this article to say he was defiantly head of the M-St house and provided a source. When you made a minor edit and said the House of Mecklenburg was "extinct" on 30 August 2007 did you provide a source for that edit or when you were Insisting Borwin was a member of a "House of Carlow". Removing that these people were and are heads of this house or implying that their positions are disputed without a single verifiable source is simply unacceptable and irresponsible you either have sources to support the dubious tag or you don't. Why should verifiable information be altered or removed to suit what is increasingly looking like your personal views on the matter. - dwc lr (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So when is the dubious tag going to be removed I haven't seen any thing to suggest that it's inaccurate to refer to him as head of the Strelitz House or that there is even a dispute about it. Can anyone provide any sources? - dwc lr (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you ask for a source which suggests that he is not head of the Strelitz house: the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels. In the 1987 volume Georg Alexander and his family are not included in the Mecklenburg article in the first section (the reigning and formerly reigning families).  They are only listed in the 1978 volume under the other princely families (i.e. they have the ducal title, but only as a new creation and not as dynasts of the formerly reigning house). The GHdA is a highly-regarded book of reference on princely families (although I personally wouldn't always agree with the interpretations it makes). I am not arguing that the GHdA is correct on this particular point - merely that there is a scholarly opinion which holds that Georg Alexander is not a dynast of the formerly reigning family (and therefore not head of the extinct Strelitz house). Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So the family was upgraded I believe they listed in Gräfliche Häuser in 1973 as Carlow! Do we know where the more recent Fürstliche Häuser ones (1997, 2004) list the family. One source which could have some useful information is the book is Das Grossherzogliche Haus Mecklenburg-Strelitz which I'm guessing will say something along the lines of Georg Alexander's father was confirmed/recognised as head of the House of M-Strelitz, Duke of Mecklenburg (Highness) following agreement by Schwerin males (18 December 1950). Regarding Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels I wondering if you can recall who if anyone it lists as head of Schwerin (or whole house?) the Hereditary Grand Duke or his brother Christian Ludwig. - dwc lr (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The point I believe is that it is not definitive one way or another but that there are possibilities. To state either as absolute fact at this point would be incorrect. I don't have access to a GHdA at this point myself so I cannot comment on what it says about the HGD or his brother. Charles 18:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I only own some GHdA volumes, and not unfortunately the 1978 (which I chose not to buy last month when I had the chance). Charles is correct however that the 1987 volume shows a scholarly opinion exists which maintains that Georg was not a Mecklenburg dynast.  The Mecklenburg article in the 1987 volume does not mention any Schwerin/Strelitz branches; there is just one house and Georg is not listed as a member.  "Friedrich Franz Erbgroßherzog v. Mecklenburg" is listed as head of the house.  But "Christian Ludwig Herzog zu Mecklenburg" also has his name in bold type (which is only given to the heads of houses) - so it seems that on this point GHdA was being indecisive. Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that is interesting about the Hereditary Grand Duke and his brother so there was possibly a dispute over who was head of the house. I believe Christian Ludwig was in a Soviet prisoner of war camp from 1945-1953 so it's possible if not likely that he was not consulted about the decision regarding Strelitz in 1950. But anyway what are we going to do now the opinion of GHdA noted, wording tweaked presumably. - dwc lr (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm responding to dwc lr's post of March 25 (but not indenting in order to get more room). I think that the most appropriate thing with Georg Alexander, his father, and his son, is to describe them in the first sentence as "is/was a claimant to the headship of the House of Mecklenburg-Strelitz" in place of "was the head of the House of Mecklenburg-Strelitz". This is what is done with the late Duke of Castro and other similar situations where there is more than one claimant (whether active or not). If it can be done with the Duke of Castro (who had widespread support among princely houses), then it can be done for the Carlow Mecklenburgs. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If I get a reference for the event of 18 Dec 1950 I will come back to this issue but for now we have to change the wording now a source denying the existence M-Strelitz house has been provided though I think an example should also be given in the main text with GHdA used "On 6 July 1962 following the death of his father he assumed the headship of the Grand Ducal house though he was not included in the 1987 Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels section on the House of Mecklenburg." or some such. . - dwc lr (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That is totally fine, just as long as it doesn't say "...became head of the House of Mecklenburg (-Strelitz)" because it is not a certain fact. Charles 06:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There seems to exist a line of the family in Finland even nowadays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.19.124 (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit war
Two editors continue to have an edit war with each other. May I ask both of them to withdraw temporarily from editing this article and allow other editors to make their contributions to improve it? The present situation is not useful or productive. Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have done all I can for now. If other editors wish to improve the article then good. My only concern is that there is a dubious tag with no evidence to support it. - dwc lr (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps other editors can come up with additional references and tweak the wording of certain statements so that there can be general agreement about the removal of the dubious tag. Noel S McFerran (talk)


 * I suppose we will see if any thing is found though the tag can't stay for ever. - dwc lr (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

About the Titles and Styles
I think it would be better to be much more specific about the titles and styles both of Duke Georg Alexander and his father, Duke George (I don't think it will hurt to discuss his father here, since they're largely in the same boat title-wise, and since there is simply no discussion on Duke George's page yet). Starting with the father, I think the only problem is that his page doesn't indicate that he was the Duke of Mecklenburg on 6 December 1934, at the death of his uncle, Charles Michael, even though he did not take the corresponding style, Highness, or drop his old title, Count of Carlow, until 18 December 1950. Thus, the correct titles for the duke, in order should be: 5 October 1899 - 11 September 1928: His Serene Highness Count George of Carlow 11 September 1928 - 6 December 1934: His Serene Highness Duke George of Mecklenburg, Count of Carlow 6 December 1934 - 18 December 1950: His Serene Highness The Duke of Mecklenburg, Count of Carlow 18 December 1950 - 6 July 1963: His Highness The Duke of Mecklenburg For Georg Alexander, considering that his father became duke on 6 December 1934, and that the title Count of Carlow was not dropped, nor was the style Highness adopted until December 18 1950, his correct titles in order should read: 27 August 1921 - 11 September 1928: His Serene Highness Count Georg Alexander of Carlow 11 September 1928 - 6 December 1934: His Serene Highness Duke Georg Alexander of Mecklenburg, Count of Carlow 6 December 1934 - 18 December 1950: His Serene Highness The Hereditary Duke of Mecklenburg, Count of Carlow 18 December 1950 - 6 July 1963: His Highness The Hereditary Duke of Mecklenburg 6 July 1963 - 26 January 1996: His Highness The Duke of Mecklenburg Please discuss the titles and styles so that we can get them right. GiovanniCarestini (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The titles and styles as they currently stand are correct as far as I’m aware. I have no Idea what Georg Alexander’s style was as just Count of Carlow, before the adoption by Charles Michael. I have sheet on his passing his full title was Duke of Mecklenburg, Prince of Wenden, Schwerin and Ratzeburg, Count of Schwerin, Lord of the Lands of Rostock and Stargard, Prince of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. - dwc lr (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But a couple of questions...should George not be listed as The Duke of Mecklenburg (whatever the style might have been), from 1934, since after the death of Charles Michael, he inherited the headship? Similarly, should Georg Alexander not be The Hereditary Duke from 1934, and The Duke from 1963, seeing as he was heir-apparent and then head? To be sure, the title of the page on George is George, Duke of Mecklenburg, not Duke George of Mecklenburg, which means that there is certainly some inconsistency going on. GiovanniCarestini (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry again, DWC LR. Please disregard my suggestion of The Hereditary Duke. Nevertheless, I am still interested to see what we can do about the titles of George, Georg Alexander, and Georg Borwin in their capacities of Head of the House. GiovanniCarestini (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the page naming heads of the German houses on wikipedia with the exception of Georg Alexander and Georg Borwin are listed as "Name, Title of Place". I imagine as head of the house there full titles are Duke of Mecklenburg, Prince of Wenden, Schwerin and Ratzeburg, Count of Schwerin, Lord of the Lands of Rostock and Stargard, Prince of Mecklenburg-Strelitz as the majority of these are the titles held by the Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg but its not easy to verify. Having consulted more sources Georg Borwin is called "duc héritier" in the book Les maisons royales et souveraines d'Europe while Borwin's son is listed as "Duke Georg Alexander, Heriditary Prince" at this webpage. - dwc lr (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw the survey you did last year for moving Duke Georg Borwin of Mecklenburg to Borwin, Duke of Mecklenburg, and I wish I had known about it then, because I would have voted to support the move as you did. It seems that the major issue is whether or not Georg Borwin qualifies as "The Duke of Mecklenburg" rather than a duke among the rest of his family. I noticed that you cited the Almanach de Gotha's website, which calls him HH The Duke of Mecklenburg, and that when another user said that it negates a number of sources, he neglected to name any of the them. I looked around and found out that the Imperial College of Princes and Counts also calls him "The Duke of Mecklenburg". In general, if Georg Borwin is "The Duke of Mecklenburg", this must mean that in Georg Alexander's time (1963-1996), Georg Alexander was HH The Duke of Mecklenburg. So, the pages really should be moved to Georg Alexander, Duke of Mecklenburg and Borwin, Duke of Mecklenburg. GiovanniCarestini (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue of whether or not he is “The Duke” is troublesome as every other head of the German houses are listed as Name, Title of Place regardless of whether there is any evidence that they are “The Prince/Duke” instead of just being a Prince regardless of whether they are head of the family or not. No one is really concerned about the other German families though. The heads of the families are listed as Name, Title of Place in reference works I've seen this seems to be the standard way to list them. - dwc lr (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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 no consensus. Aervanath (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Duke Georg Alexander of Mecklenburg → Georg Alexander, Duke of Mecklenburg &mdash; title is put after name to represent head of family for every other head of a German princely house and is how they are listed in reference works.. dwc lr (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator. - dwc lr (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose As previous discussion on this page shows, it remains disputed whether the morganatic Carlows ever became dynastic, and that Georg Alexander therefore became head of the dynasty entitled to the WP format of "Name, Title of Place" which is used for recognized heads of house. The Carlows (including Georg Alexander) are not listed as dynastic by:
 * 1) L'Allemagne Dynastique, Tome VI Bade-Mecklembourg, pages 235, 241, 247, 254 (dynasts="Duc de Mecklembourg-Schwerin" or "Duc de Mecklembourg-Strelitz", but Georg Alexander (and issue) are named "Duc de Mecklembourg, Comte de Carlow", with no mention of de-morganatization.
 * 2) Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels Fürstliche Häuser (GHdA) Band XV, pages 64-68. Carlow branch is entirely omitted from the article on the Mecklenburg dynasty, but Georg Alexander is included, as mentioned previously in discussion above, in an article on non-dynastic Dukes of Mecklenburg in the 1978 edition (Band X). In the 2001 edition (Band XVI), Georg Alexander's uncle is mentioned as "Carl Gregor Hzg zu Mecklenburg, Gf v. Carlow".
 * 3) Almanach de Gotha, 1944, pages 83-84 ("duc de Mecklembourg, comte de Carlow" is given as the name of Karl Michael (and his male line), but the ducal prefix given to dynasts is omitted). Lethiere (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't now whether it is correct to say that L'Allemagne Dynastique regards them as non dynastic no such title of Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin(or Strelitz) even exists. Das Grossherzogliche Haus Mecklneburg-Strelitz, Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Beiträge zur Geschichte einer Region, Das Haus Mecklenburg, Les maisons royales et souveraines d'Europe, Almanach de Gotha (1998 and proceeding editions) they are listed as heads. I believe in the 1978 edition (or one form the 80's) of GHdA Georg Alexander is listed as "Georg Alexander..... Hrzg zu Mecklneburg" with his title at the end of his name the rest are listed "Hrz/Hrzin ... zu Mecklenburg" I don't see why wikipedia should differ. - dwc lr (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that both the sources and editors on this talk page are in disagreement about the status of the Carlows. Lethiere (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors may disagree, the majority of sources that I personally have seen suggest say they are heads of the Strelitz house. Even in GHdA which you have mentioned the title for the head of this family (they can list them where they like) is given after the name hence this move request to reflect that. I don’t see a major issue. - dwc lr (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC) - dwc lr (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The majority of independent sources I have seen and discussions I have read do not show him as head of the dynastic house of Mecklenburg or Mecklenburg-Strelitz. The fact that your previous efforts to get changes to reflect the Carlows as dynastic have been disputed indicates that the matter remains unclear, and that other editors have disagreed with those efforts. The contradictions in texts explain why. Therefore we should do nothing to this or other pages which implies a consensus on his dynasticity and/or title -- until a consensus does exist. The point of changing this page to put title after his Christian name instead of before would be to show him as enjoying a status consistent with dynastic and noble heads of house. But his only unanimously agreed-upon style, "Duke of Mecklenburg, Count von Carlow", is non-dynastic, does not descend by primogeniture, and does not reflect that anyone is "head of house": Georg Alexander was merely one of several family members who had equal right to the same title, which is what the current title of the article suggests. Lethiere (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Das Grossherzogliche Haus Mecklenburg-Strelitz says that the adoption contact of his father granted his father succession rights. And I believe it says his father renounced the “Count of Carlow” title in 1950 I check on Wednesday to make sure I’m right. I’ve never see the Carlow title used other than in GHdA and L'Allemagne Dynastique. I’ve seen (and had them shown to me on here in the past) the discussions online (assuming that you are referring to alt.talk.royalty) and I’m aware that there is wrong information in them so be careful what you read as the Heradlica.org page is partially based on those discussions and is now contaminated. You don’t have to believe me but I have an email from a year or so ago from a German royal historian who told me “So the situation was finally cleared by letter of H.R.H. the Heriditary GD of Mecklenburg-Schwerin in 1950 (Dec.18th). He (and other male members of the house) certified that Borwins grandfather is the "Head of the Mecklenburg-Strelitz House" with Title of a Duke and qualification of "Highness". This letter was announced to all german heads of the house and since than the situation is clear.” Though sadly I can’t cite it the article obviously. So based on texts I own and correspondence I have that is why I believe this should be moved and I believe heads of families (or people who wrongly claim to be as you seem to believe) should be treated the same regarding naming conventions. I believe denying this move would give WP:Undue weight. - dwc lr (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Das Grossherzogliche Haus Mecklenburg-Strelitz P. 108 "Fortfall des namens "Graf von Carlow" 18 Dezember 1950." - dwc lr (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2009 (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.