Talk:Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preussen/Archive 1

Requested move
Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia → Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia – Georg Friedrich is the head of a (former) royal house and should be treated as Ernst August V, Prince of Hanover, is for consistency. His official website refers to him as The Prince of Prussia. Charles 18:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting

 * Support The move would be consistent with the treatment of the Hanoverians. Charles 18:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I support consistent treatment with Hanoverians. Prince Georg is cute! 128.208.36.154 04:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support- per above. Prsgodd e ss187 12:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * See above, thanks. Charles 18:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Untitled

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Mecklenburg
Why is Georg Friedrich listed as the dynastic claimant to Mecklenburg? First, there are still de-morganatized male-line descendants of this deposed dynasty that use the title "Duke of Mecklenburg" pursuant to family agreement (one such duke is wed to a Hohenzollern princess!). At the very least, I would expect these Mecklenburgs to challenge this claim, rendering it non-NPOV. Second, the claim is extremely obscure and unproven, having only been put forth after the abolition of both the Mecklenburg and Prussian monarchies, and then only quite recently as part of online discussions among a few monarchists and genealogists. Is there any evidence that Georg Friedriech is even aware that he is supposed to be the current Grand Duke of Mecklenburg? I fear inclusion of this reference trivializes what many are already prone to regard as a matter (heirs to defunct thrones) that is no longer worthy of attention in a modern encyclopedia. Lethiere 09:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a pact. When the line of Mecklenburg-Werle became extinct in the 1500s, the Margrave (Marquess) of Brandenburg claimed that portion. He was denied it, but there was a legally binding pact made that the Margrave of Brandenburg held all residual rights to all of Mecklenburg on the extinction of the dynastic male-line of the house. There are no dynasts left to Mecklenburg. There are two duchesses of Mecklenburg and some dukes of Russian creation. However, the Russian dukes of Mecklenburg do not hold that title as agnates of Mecklenburg. It was granted to the morganaut Georg Alexander Michael Friedrich Wilhelm Albert Theodor Franz, Count of Carlow, with the style of Serene Highness by the pretender to the Russian throne, Grand Duke Cyril. It has no bearing on the headship of all of Mecklenburg though. That right belongs to the dynastic heir of the Margrave of Brandenburg, which is now George Frederick, titular German Emperor, King of Prussia and Grand Duke of Mecklenburg. The Mecklenburgs can't challenge the claim as all eligible dynasts are dead. Mecklenburg has a rich, complex history and it's relation to George Frederick and his eligibility as Grand Duke of Mecklenburg are worth mention. Charles 16:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with Charles about the historical facts. But I think that the Mecklenburg statement should NOT be in the first sentence of the article.  It's a relatively minor bit of trivia which should be tacked on at the end of the article instead. Noel S McFerran 20:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you present evidence on what basis the elector of Brandenburg claimed the Werle inheritance? (apparently in c 1440, not in 1500's, since the last surviving lord of Werle died c 1438 - the elector at that time was Frederick II of Brandenburg, who however in 1470 died without surviving sons and was succeeded by his younger brother.) Afaik, the Brandenburg were not descended from the Werle nor from any other close way from Obotrites princes. Marrtel 11:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I really think that you should add that the Mecklenburg claim is disputed - for the clarity of your article. In 1950 the head of the Mecklenburg house recognised the Count of Carlow as a dynastic member of his family, and his heir presumptive. If you agree that he was the head of the house, according to German Law he had the power to declare members of his house either dynastic or not. If indeed the present prince of Mecklenburg be excluded from succession, it would be because he is not Lutheran, as was required by the old constitution of those principalities.

It would be also intersting to find out, if the Hohenzollerns claim the Mecklemburg titles. From what I know - they don't.

Kazimierz Bem


 * That would have been in totally contravention of the pact. The Prussians were considered dynasts and the Count of Carlow was not. therefore, his rights, if any (and there were none), were superceded by those of the Prussian royal family. All that was and could be recognized was the *Russian* creation of the title duke of Maecklenburg with the style of Serene Highness. Noting any dispute is the same as noting the Jacobite claims at every Hanoverian, Saxon and Windsor monarch of the United Kingdoms pages. Karl Michael of Mecklenburg-Strelitz renounced any claim to the throne of Strelitz. It was he who adopted his morganaut nephew and he could not transmit any rights through him. For the purposes of Mecklenburg succession, George Borwin, Count of Carlow, doesn't exist. Charles 19:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Count of Carlow was recognised as dynast not by his uncle but by the last Duke of Mecklenburg Schwerin. Like I said, the dynasts were free to choose who was morganatic or not. Apparently the house of meckenburg changed its mind. A good example of that is the deceased Dutch prince consort Berhnard von Lippe Bisterfeld: born morganatic, in 1915 recognised as dynastic.


 * The chances of either of them ever resuming the thrones are remote. What I am asking for, is that you put down that the claim to Mecklenburg is debateble. Which it is.


 * Thanx. Kazimierz


 * Please continue conversations under the same heading. I've fixed it this time. Lippe operated on different rules than Mecklenburg. Mecklenburg house laws state that a morganaunt or a former dynast cannot (re-) included without the consent of the other dynasts, which included the members of the Prussian Royal Family. Such a thing did not happen. George Borwin of Carlow is not a dynast. Charles 18:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There are several reasons why Kazimierz is correct and why I support his request that Prince Georg Friedrich's "claim" to Mecklenburg be cited, if at all, as disputable:
 * There are agnates of the Grand Ducal House of Mecklenburg who claim the ducal title and style, and were authorized to do so by the previous claimant, and who may, therefore, claim the Grand Ducal legacy as well.
 * There is no evidence whatsoever that the Prince of Prussia is even aware of, much less actually "claims", the Mecklenburg Grand Ducal title or legacy.
 * Mecklenburg's house law in this case is governed by Private German Princely Law, which stipulated that the agnates of a dynasty (not "dynasts" which would include female-line Mecklenburg descendants as well as Hohenzollerns) could waive the requirement of Ebenburtigkeit in favor of an agnate of the family if this was done unanimously. When Hereditary Grand Duke Friedrich Franz (1910-2001) accepted Count Georg von Carlow as HH Duke Georg of Mecklenburg in 1950, he was Head of the House and there were only two other dynastic agnates remaining, his younger brother Duke Christian Ludwig (1913-96) and his grand-uncle Duke Adolf Friedriech (1873-1969). We do not know whether or not these princes agreed, then or later, to de-morganatize their Carlow cousin at the behest of the Head of their House. But since they had fathered only daughters, they knew that the choice for the dynasty's future (such as it was, the throne having long been lost in 1918 and most of the former realm having been absorbed into communist East Germany) lay between Georg Carlow, an agnatic cousin accepted by their paterfamilias as a Duke of Mecklenburg whose eldest son was married at the time to an Austrian archduchess, or a Prince of Prussia of another dynasty. It is perfectly possible and arguably likely that these princes consented to the dynasticization of Georg Carlow for the purpose of representing the Mecklenburg claim in the legitimate male line. Even if they did not, since the Hereditary Grand Duke became the last dynastic Mecklenburg prince in 1996, he could then have confirmed (or upgraded) the dynastic status of the Carlow morganauts unilaterally. Until the circumstances and extent of the recognition of Duke Georg's branch are known, any Prussian claim to Mecklenburg must be considered in doubt, and the throne in dispute between at least two claimants. For the right of dynastic agnates to de-morganatize other agnates, see: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/Zoepfl.htm#Misalliances
 * Even if the 1442 claim of Brandenburg to Mecklenburg theoretically survived the abolition of the Holy Roman Empire, and the German Empire (and that would require considerable research in the historical law of the Mecklenburg grand duchies to verify), there is no clear legal proof that Mecklenburg's throne would now have devolved to the present Head of House of Prussia.
 * Neither Mecklenburg nor Brandenburg practiced primogeniture in 1442. Mecklenburg did not become heritable by primogeniture until 1701, yet the last time the pact was renewed confirming Brandenburg's residual rights to Mecklenburg was 1696 -- before the partition into the Schwerin and Strelitz branches that became two separate, sovereign nations in 1806. Therefore, all the Hohenzollerns of Brandenburg (now "of Prussia") are heirs severally and equally to the Mecklenburg ducal territories and title -- and there are a lot of them alive today. But after 1806 German succession pacts that would have required the division of a nation into appanages for dynastic cadets came to be considered constitutionally unenforceable.
 * Georg Friedrich is not even the primogeniture representative of the Brandenburg claim, even if it were determined that Mecklenburg could be inherited by that representative. In 1442 and 1696 Mecklenburg had no laws requiring Ebenburtigkeit (equality of birth in marriage). When it did adopt such laws, they applied only to agnates of their own dynasty, not to any heirs of another dynasty. Prussia, of course, enforced its own laws of Ebenburtigkeit -- under which Georg Friedrich is the current Head of the House of Prussia. But Prussia's equal-marriage laws cannot be applied to the Mecklenburg inheritance. Georg Friedrich is, in fact, only 8th in line among the Prussian Hohenzollern males according to strict masculine primogeniture. He is heir because the two elder brothers of his late father renounced, and because their sons and agnatic grandsons were born of "unequal" marriages. If the primogeniture representative of the Prussian princes is the rightful heir to Mecklenburg, that is currently Prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia, born 1939 -- and he has repudiated his 1967 renunciation to the Prussian dynasty's legacy and is an active rival to his nephew Georg Friedrich.


 * For all of these reasons, it is inappropriate to list Georg Friedrich as Duke of Mecklenburg or heir thereto. It is not WP's role or function to resolve claims to defunct monarchies, or to treat potential obstacles to a particular pretender's claim as unambiguously resolved when obvious claimants and/or issues are manifest and deserve to be presented if the matter is to be delved into at all. This is especially so when the proposed claimant has put forth no public claim. This isn't like a British peerage where all that is relevant are the letters patent and the widely known laws governing inheritance of noble titles. This is an obscure area of history governed by long obsolete laws and treaties. Leave it lie.Lethiere 18:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, It seems that I stirred the debate but I do have a question: As far as I know the rullers of Mecklemburg were supposed to be Lutheran. In fact, when one of them married a Catholic and became one himself he had to renounce the claim to the Dutchy. Is that really the case? Did the religion of the Head of the House (and reigning Duke matter?) Kazimierz

Head of the Royal House of Prussia
Prince Georg Friedrich Ferdinand of Prussia, (German: Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preußen) (born June 10, 1976) is the current head of the royal house of Prussia is inconsistent. There is a King of Prussia, King Fernidad Frederick of Prussia of The House of Hohenzollern. Please check out www.houseofhohenzollern.com and get back to me?


 * That's a hoax, pure and simple. Charles 01:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A quite stupid hoax, btw. "Ferdinad" ist not a name at all.217.81.59.117 23:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's "Fernidad", which is even worse. Apparently he claims to be a descendant of an imaginary older brother of Frederick William II.  No explanation is given as to why nobody knew that Frederick William II had an older brother. john k 20:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you start a Plaintiffs Section then under Rulers/Monarchs? 09:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. Charles 17:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

English name
The English language version of preussen.de refers to him as George Frederick instead of Georg Friedrich; should the article's title be changed thus? Olessi 03:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I think living pretenders and currently reigning kings/queens keep their own language versions of their names, ie Juan Carlos of Spain and Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples as opposed to John Charles and Victor Emmanuel. Now whether or not the king of Spain, who is more widely known by his Spanish name, will revert to John Charles after his death is yet to be seen. But I think this article can stay here. Morhange 05:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If the English version of his official site refers to him as George Frederick then I think we should as well. Charles 20:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Naming conventions (names and titles) say "use the most common form of the name used in English". While "George Frederick" may well be used on this one single website, there are literally hundreds of scholarly English-language sources which refer to him as "Georg Friedrich".  I can find nothing in the Naming conventions which would suggest that one single source (even if an "official site") should over-rule common usage. Noel S McFerran 21:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How he is referred to in media reports would be particularly useful, I think. What type of scholarly sources are you referring to, Noel?  Genealogy? john k 03:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture
The picture attached to the article looks at least ten years old. There's a more recent one at the subject's website; is there any copyright reason it hasn't been substituted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The42ndGuy (talk • contribs) 20:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Other possible candidate
Doesn't Princess Marie Cécile of Prussia count as the heir to the German throne? Brutannica 00:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the succession law is Salic. All the males in the House of Prussia must be exhausted and then females may possibly inherit. Charles 01:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Last Name
Why is his last name Prinz von Pruben (Prince of Prussia) when he is head of the Hohenzollern family. Shouldn't his last name be von Hohenzollern. For example, the pretender to Austria is called Otto von Habsburg, not Otto, Prince of Austria and Hungary. Emperor001 22:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * His last name is not Prinz von Pruben, it is Prinz von Preussen (or Prinz von Preußen in Germany). Otto von Habsburg is called such because he has adopted Habsburg as his surname. That is his choice. George Frederick simply uses his title as a surname because that is just what the trend (and law) was, that titles became surnames. None of these families had a surname prior to WWI so they could choose either their title or their house name to use if they really wanted. Charles 18:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Regnal name claimed
Recently an editor has added that the regnal name claimed by or on behalf of Georg Friedrich is "Friedrich IV". I can find no published source for this information. It appears to me to violate the No original research official policy. Noel S McFerran 13:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

British Line of Succession
This article claims that Georg Friedrich is 150, but the actual article says that he's 151, which one should be changed? Emperor001 (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove it. Per the discussion at the line of succession's talk page, articles should have the numbers moved when edited, because it doesn't make sense to edit hundreds of articles on the basis of a person's birth, death or conversion to Catholicism. Charles 21:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The guy himself
It would seem plausible that less of the article should discuss Georg Friedrich's possibly dubious claims to the throne of Mecklenburg, and should perhaps try to discuss more about him, personally. I recall a big Vanity Fair (I think) article a few years ago on the various deposed royal houses of Europe that had a profile of Georg Friedrich. That would seem like a useful source. john k 20:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have the Vanity Fair issue, I believe. I will try to find it tonight and will post back when I do. Charles 20:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I seem to recall he made a ridiculous comment suggesting that he thinks the monarchy will at some point be restored in Germany. john k 01:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * After much searching through my archives, I found it: Vanity Fair, Sept 2003 issue. It states that the Prince is Grand Master of the Order of the Black Eagle and of the Luise Order, Co-Grand Master of the Hohenzollern House Order and head of the House of Hohenzollern. The Prince was born in Bremen and "currently" (in 2003) studies business administration at the Technical University of Freiberg. He is the chairman of the Princess Kira of Prussia Foundation (which sends disadvantaged children to Hohenzollern Castle) and is interested in mountain biking, the Internet, history and hunting. The quote was, "People in Germany should start thinking about bringing back the monarchy. I am sure it will happen." The Prince was also photographed by Prince Philipp of Hesse at Sanssouci on May 29, 2003 but I doubt that the image can be included. Charles 02:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The quote, at least, seems worthy of being included. Do the Hohenzollerns still own Hohenzollern Castle? I know the Prince's great-grandfather the Crown Prince lived there in his last years. john k 10:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that the castle is owned jointly by the Sigmaringen and Prussian branches. If that is indeed true, then yes, the Hohenzollerns still own it. I would assume that ownership is probably limited to HI&RH The Prince of Prussia and HSH The Prince of Hohenzollern, but I am not sure. If you post to Alt.Talk.Royalty, they may know. Re: the Vanity Fair info, I am unsure as to how to include and cite it. Charles 16:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of 'the guy himself' I noticed that nothing is said of his maritial status. Does anyone have any info on this? 66.31.78.14 (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Prince is unmarried. He was supposedly dating a princess of Isenburg a few years ago but is not longer with her. Charles 23:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Great Imperial State Crest
The Crest shown in this article is the former Great Imperial State Crest (Großes Kaiserliches Reichswappen) and is, in my opinion, wrongly placed here. Here one should find either the Royal Crest of the House of Preußen or the newly redesigned official House Logo of the House of Preußen. Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.59.26 (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Title (manner of address)
According to the German wiki on manners of address and to my knowledge, the title "His Imperial and Royal Highness The Prince of Prussia" is not valid, since Prussia never was a Kaiserreich as such but the Imperial Prussians merely presided the other kings as Kaisers, and this the only correct traditional manner of address is "His Royal Highness the Prince of Prussia". he has never been called "Kaiserliche und Königliche Hoheit", and even the title of a royal highness is merely granted to the head of a dukedom, so he only held that title since 1994.

Flemmilu (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not Head of Hohenzollern family only Prussian branch - Senior / Cadet Branches Reversed
This articles the two branches seniority status is reversed. This is also unfortunately true on the German Wikipedia site. Frederick IV was the older brother and Conrad III was the younger brother, at least that is what the family believed. This is an important point in the relationship between the Head of the House of Hohenzollern in Swabia and the more powerful and much more important Kings and Emperors from the cadet branch. Cadet branch explains the situation as did the reference just deleted. --CSvBibra (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As to "of Hohenzollern=House of Prussia, just like House of Habsburg=House of Austria. He is head of the entire House of Hohenzollern" House of Habsburg-Lorraine=House of Austria yes but not the case in House of Prussia. The relationship between the powerful kings of Prussia/emperors of Germany and the Head of the House of Hohenzollern was like many feudal relationships complicated but they were two different men.  Unless the head of the Prussian branch was recently adopted by a senior member of the Swabian branch, they are still two different individuals.--CSvBibra (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There are sources that claim that Conrad was older - for example, Collier's encyclopedia: with bibliography and index, Volume 12 and Medieval Germany: an encyclopedia. Anyway, the sources already used by the article refer to him as "the head of the House of Hohenzollern" and, according to them, Georg Friedrich considers himself the head of the House of Hohenzollern. Even if there weren't any sources to support the claim that Conrad was older, I'd find it suspicious that Georg Friedrich (the heir male of Conrad I) is almost universally considered head of the House of Hohenzollern while the heir male of Frederick IV is considered head of the House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (i.e. I'd find it suspicious that a cadet branch retained the name Hohenzollern while the older branch was renamed Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen). Am I missing something? Surtsicna (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A couple points:
 * 1) The Prussian Hohenzollerns typically use the last name “von Preußen” not Hohenzollern..
 * 2) A) Besides the reference previously given which discussed the issue both in the narrative and chart, B) I consulted a 19th century family chart which is on ebay [] which clearly shows that the Swabian branch is the senior line. D) I went to the “Hof-Kalender 1928 Jestus Perthes”, the relevant pages are 65 & 69 .  Page 65 refers to “Haus Preußen (Hohenzollern)” descended from Konrad (1208-1261).  Page 69 refers to "(Wahrscheinlich ältere) Fűrstliche Line des hauses Hohenzollern” descended from Friedrich (1205-1251).
 * 3) Reference 1 The Hohenzollern Succession Dispute refers to "Erbunfähigkeit" im Hause Preußen and Hausverfassung des Brandenburgisch-Preußischen Hauses --CSvBibra (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Prussian Hohenzolerrns typically use the last name "Prinz von Preußen" or the feminine equivalent. I'm not sure how that's related.
 * The references I provided also clearly and unambigiously state that Conrad was older. Clearly, there are contradicting reports. Thus, we should say (in relevant articles) that seniority between the brothers is disputed but the references unambigiously claim that this man is the head of the House of Hohenzollern. Do you have any references that claim that someone other than him is the head of the House of Hohenzollern? If you don't, I'm afraid we are engaging in original research.
 * I'm not sure what you meant by your last point. Surtsicna (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I went to one of the two web sites of the family. The main German version states that Prinz Georg Friedrich von Preussen is the “Chef des Hauses “ and that Fürst Friedrich Wilhelm von Hohenzollern is the “Chef des Fürstlichen Hauses Hohenzollern”. The English version says Georg Friedrich is the head of the house of Hohenzollern and throws in the terms Swabian for Friedrich Wilhelm. Although I am mindful of the Original Research issue, I emailed the other Hohenzollern site (hohenzollern.com) if they could shed any light. Unless they steer me to in another direction, I think we can leave Georg Friedrich as head of the House of Hohenzollern.--CSvBibra (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I must dissent. Although there has always been some doubt as to which line was more senior, most historical authorities lean toward the seniority of the Swabian branch. However, it should be noted that primogeniture did not apply to either their titles or to their lands within the Holy Roman Empire at the time the branches diverged from their common ancestor, so "Head of the House" really does not imply the kind of paterfamilias authority English-speakers are apt to associate with the elder son's right, e.g., to a father's peerage. There were no legal privileges associated with headship. However, in 1849, following the upheavals in the two Swabian principalities which prompted their rulers to lay down their sovereignty in favor of Prussia, and to accept honors (e.g., Highness) and rank as cadets of the House of Prussia, it is quite plausible that some accord was struck between the three branches of the dynasty which allowed the Prussian branch to assume the title Hauschef. But absent a document to that effect, we are obliged to go by the ordinary meaning of that term, which is based on pure genealogical seniority. In that case, I think the correct interpretation is that the Hohenzollern kings (and their current heir) are heads of the House of Prussia, while the Swabian Fürsten are heads of the entire House of Hohenzollern (with the dynastic Romanian Hohenzollerns eligible to accede to that style ahead of any Prussian prince). The fact that neither branch explicitly acknowledged this fact probably reflected the awkwardness of the junior branch having become so much more powerful than the senior branch -- the gap was, for instance, similar to but much greater than that between the royal Albertine and the ducal Ernestine branches of the House of Wettin. FactStraight (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The head of the royal house is the title holder/ruler. Which is why the head of the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is Andreas, and not Elizabeth, or the Duke of Kent. Plus, unless you have a source that agrees with you it is just original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.44.209 (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My changes
Here are the reasons for my changes: Greetings everyone, Blur4760 22:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Technically, "Georg Friedrich Ferdinand Prinz von Preußen" is not a translation of "Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia". The comma here makes all the difference. "Georg Friedrich Ferdinand Prinz von Preußen" is a person, whose first name is "Georg Friedrich Ferdinand " and whose last name is "Prinz von Preußen". "Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia" is a person whose first name is "Georg Friedrich" and who is a Prince of Prussia. To indicate in German that a person is a Prince of Prussia, one would have to put a comma at the very same place as in English. That is however rarely done. In German, the object of the article is either referred to as "Prinz Georg Friedrich Ferdinand  von Preußen" (wrongly, in my POV) or as "Georg Friedrich Ferdinand Prinz von Preußen" (give or take the "Ferdinand"
 * 2) I doubt he is commonly styled "His Royal Highness The Prince of Prussia". It may be happen often, but in the majority of cases?
 * 3) I didn't want to use sometimes twice in the same sentence and the second "is" was unneccessary, so I removed it for stylistic reasons.
 * 4) The former wording regarding titles being part of the last name implied somehow that it was something extraordinary the German government did for people of such high importance as the object of the article. It is not. All his children will have the same last name, and if he has a daughter, who marries a "commoner", their children could still receive the last name "Prinz von Preußen". That is all "Prinz von Preußen" is, a last name like "Miller" or "Smith".


 * Sorry, but this is wrong. Females take the feminine form of the surname. He is generally referred to solely because he is a prince (or can claim to be one), which is where the title comes in. He is generally styled such only when he is styled at all. Charles 23:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong? That "Prinz von Preußen" is his last name? Or that the German translation of "Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia" is not "Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preußen" but rather "Georg Friedrich, Prinz von Preußen". The first is a consequence of the "Preußische Gesetz über die Aufhebung der Standesvorrechte des Adels und die Auflösung des Hausvermögens" (My translation would be"Prussian Act regarding the abolishment of noble privilige and the dissolution of the royal estate"). While I don't find that law on the net for easy reference, I can point you to a law of the Free State of Schaumburg-Lippe, which is virtually the same; see here. Look at § 4. That a woman would take the feminine form is just a courtesy of the civil registry, but that doesn't change the letter of the law that former titles are only part of the legal last name. Regarding the fact that a title would need to be either in front of the name or beseperated by comma from the rest of the name, I hope you can trust me with that as a German native speaker. Blur4760 23:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I add Art. 109 WRV of the Weimar Constitution to the mix: "Adelsbezeichnungen gelten nur als Teil des Namens und dürfen nicht mehr verliehen werden." is quite clear language. Blur4760 23:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * it isn't clear to me. I am pretty sure though that it isn't exactly the same. For example; Franz, Duke of Bavaria, was Franz, Prince of Bavaria at birth. They are part of the last name, and legally it could be inherited through the female line. What we are talking about here is style. Do you know what it says on his passport? I don't know any John, Smith. But usually with titles there is a comma. I don't see why this article can't and shouldn't use the comma. which I think is what we are arguing here. If as a expert on German you say they don't use the comma, then don't use it for German.

71.194.44.209 (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The point that the others tried to make was that Prinz von Preussen is just his surname and thus, translating it into English is quite odd in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know, foreign family names are not generally translated into English. Look, for example, at the Wikipedia entry of the current Spanish prime minister Zapatero (lit. translation: 'Shoemaker') which reads as follows: José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero is a Spanish politician and member of the .... No mention of 'shoemaker' there either... Following Wikipedia conventions, a correct sentence might hence be: Georg Friedrich Ferdinand Prinz von Preußen, Prince of Prussia, is the current head... (with 'Prinz von Preußen' being his surname and 'Prince of Prussia' his title)

Great War Timeline
The Great War was known because it involved several countries at once. However the link point to World War 2 (Notation: World War II). I would suggest that the link be corrected, and, if nobody objects, that is what I have done. Richard416282 (talk) 05:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Titles
there was some mistaken claim that he was heir to a claim on the duchy of Nassau, which I removed. however the German Emperors had a long list of titles, should those be added? 71.194.44.209 (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would guess not, because of the law quoted above that abolished titles. Pkeets (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Style
According to the article Style (manner of address), a style is a "legal, official, or recognized title". As per the reference from the German ministry of the interior, Prinz von Preußen's style is "Herr Prinz von Preussen", not His/ Your Imperial and Royal Highness. The fact that he and his supporters prefer to refer to him as His Imperial and Royal Highness does not make that his style. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But this is English Wikipedia, which is not bound by Germany's law on non-recognition of dynastic styles. In English "Mr. Prince of Prussia" sounds ridiculous and isn't used -- I suspect that it sounds just as absurd in German and, except in strictly legal contexts, isn't used there either. In the television broadcast of this wedding -- which was aired and widely watched in Berlin precisely because the bridal couple are "royal, by tradition", law notwithstanding -- a congratulatory message was read aloud at the ecumenical nuptials (the bride is Catholic, the groom, Protestant) from Pope Benedict XVI and addressed to Seine Königliche Hoheit Prinz Georg Friedrich von Preussen und Ihre Durchlaucht Prinzessin Sophie von Isenburg ("His Royal Highness Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia and Her Serene Highness Princess Sophie of Isenburg"). The Pope is a "legal, official and recognized" head of state who sent a formal message of congratulations and blessing to the head of Germany's historical dynasty and his wife-to-be, an "official" member of the Pope's congregation. If you and others would rather not call him Imperial and Royal Highness no one seeks to compel you to do so: The article provides his "Mister" style and explicitly acknowledges that his traditional style is not recognized by the German state. But what makes the man notable is the fact that he is the heir to a tradition in which that style is historically his -- and plenty of reliable sources, cited in the article, use it in referring to him. There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia acknowledging both facts. FactStraight (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The English wikipedia is not bound by the pope's statements. "Mr Prince of Prussia" might sound ridiculous in English, but we don't translate names word for word like that. That's not how translation is done (and no, it doesn't sound absurd in German). That the pope is a "legal, official and recognized" head of state does not mean that His/ Your Imperial and Royal Highness is Georg Friedrich's "legal, official, or recognized title". Georg Friedrich is German, and the German ministry of the interior says that his style is not His/ Your Imperial and Royal Highness. The fact that Monarchists who would like to see him on a non-extant throne refer to him as such does not make it his style. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No one is claiming that it is his official or legal style, it is however common (even in Germany) for him to be referred to by a royal style, so its relevant to note what that style is and not suppress it. - dwc lr (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not his official or legal style? A style is a "legal, official, or recognized title". I'm not trying to suppress anything, I'm just trying to represent the facts as they currently stand. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The style is recognised there were four reference's to support it. Did the Pope not recognise his royal style? - dwc lr (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because the pope refers to him in a certain way, that does not make it his style. The pope's a catholic monarch, he has a vested interest in acting as if the descendants of other catholic monarchs still retain some elevated position. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And all the other sources saying his style is Imperial and Royal Highness ? - dwc lr (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The German ministry of the interior's a more neutral source than books written by royalists. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt the German republic is going to be more 'neutral' than French or American genealogists who have written the books when it comes to the former ruling houses of Germany. - dwc lr (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How so? The guidelines from the ministry of the interior describes things as they are, whereas Coutant de Saisseval, for example, campaigns for the restoration of monarchy and describes things as he would like them to be. We even have a footnote explaining that after the weimar constitution was enacted, former titles became part of the surname. The ref from the ministry of the interior expands upon this, and explains that styles such as "royal highness" were not retained as they were never part of the individuals' names. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer in the article addresses that. "Styles" are not titles: they are forms of address attributed by courtesy. Just as no one can compel or forbid someone from adding "Mr." as someone's style, no law forbids anyone from attributing traditional styles to people. Your assessment of the Pope's "interest" is your unsubstantiated opinion, as is your opinion about what you call "royalist" sources: the fact remains that numerous sources may be and have been documented using the styles that you delete, and so long as the style is included which the German government prefers (but which English Wikipedia has no obligation to confine itself to), so may others if properly documented, as they are. You cherrypicked sources in German referring to Georg Friedrich as Herr: in the majority of writing about him, including news periodicals, he is simply referred to as a "Prince" and often referred to as "Royal" or "Imperial Highness". FactStraight (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

???
How can republic courts legalise pretence? (I may not express myself because of bad english) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.197.86 (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be abolished? It goes against wikipedia's rules about notable persons
The article says nothing about what he's done in his life. He seems to have had a grandfather who was notable, but wikipedia doesn't normally have articles about non-entities just because they're related to famous people.


 * Georg Friedrich is written about in other sources, and therefore he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. There are, for example, numerous publications which have already had articles about his engagement. Noel S McFerran (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I also agree... why is he even called Prince in the first place? Prussia ceased to exist a long time ago.(68.54.215.35 (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC))

That is explained in the article. In 1919, Weimar abolished titles, but said they could be used as the surname; the BRD confirmed this policy after the second war. I think it is a way to acknowledge history.

I happen to know GF is involved in several venture capital projects, such as "Innoveas", which takes cutting edge academic research and turns the inventions developed therein into viable companies. If this can be properly sourced, it should be put in the article. Maybe GF's entry in wiki-deutsch has some leads? 213.205.194.166 (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

He is a pretender and i think it for the reason that if int he possible that germany restore the monarchy he wold be Kasier like most pretenders he have a right to be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingOscarXIX (talk • contribs) 17:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Georg Friedrich, Prince 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808234948/http://www.nettyroyal.nl:80/newsoct05.html to http://www.nettyroyal.nl/newsoct05.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Georg Friedrich, Prince 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101207041859/http://www.cicero.de/97.php?item=665&ress_id=7 to http://www.cicero.de/97.php?item=665&ress_id=7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

He founded a beer company?? Citations needed.
Citations needed for this line: In 2017 he founded a beer trademark called Kgl. Preußische Biermanufactur (Royal Prussian Beer Manufactory) producing a Pilsner brand called “Preussens“.

So far, could not find any news article or research material to support the above statement. Suggest removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.70.130 (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

King of Germany
Google lists him as King of Germany only because it does so on Wikipedia. This really should be corrected, especially the reference to Germany being an absolute monarch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephven (talk • contribs) 17:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Google currently lists him as King of Germany. --94.134.89.203 (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't find anything online to verify the statement below - and am fairly sure that Germany is not an absolute monarch. How did this creep in? Suggest it be removed or links should be added to verify this information.

"Re-Installation as Emperor of Germany "In 1997 the German Bundestag and Bundesrat made an official decision to re-install Georg as Emperor of Germany and is houses former title as King of Prussia. Since then Germany has been ruled over by an absolute monarchy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephven (talk • contribs) 17:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Citation? This just sounds loopy. 2A00:23C5:E08D:8A00:19B7:8C05:3358:45D4 (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Ancestry/Paternity issues! (Major)
The princes father is listed as Louis Ferdinand (his grandfather) leading to confusion on the rest of the article. His father was Prince Frederich Wilhelm, who died in 1977. He succeeded directly from his paternal grandfather Louis F which may have led to this confusion. This is listed wrong in the article and in the info box. Murreywhgold (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Georg Friedrich's father was also named Louis Ferdinand, not Friedrich Wilhelm, who is his eldest uncle. Friedrich Wilhelm died in 2015. Piratesswoop (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This person is not a prince, he has no styles or titles, there is no such thing as a Prussian royal family any more
This article I think is full of very misleading information, or maybe more accurately, lies. There is no Prussian royal family, there are no German royal titles, this person does not have any styles or titles. Look at the German article on this person, there is none of that foolishness there. Why is the English WP playing out some sort of pre WWI snobs' fantasy? Per WP:BRD I am deleting it all.Smeat75 (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So I changed the template for "Prussian Royal Family" but that section on "styles and titles" needs to be removed, those titles have not existed since 1919.Smeat75 (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Several reliable sources in different languages have been added to the article documenting the notability and post-1919 attribution or use of Royal and/or Imperial Highness for Georg Friedrich by journalists and experts in international titulature, as well as his current position as representative by dynastic primogeniture and historical heir of the patriline of the Kings of Prussia and the German Emperors. FactStraight (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * These titles are given out of courtesy, but do not have any legal standings. Same for the address "Royal Highness" etc. While Germany doesn't go as far as Austria in completely abolishing the titles (Like Prince Otto of Habsburg becoming "Otto Habsburg-Lothringen"), legally, after 1919 the title "Prince" has become part of the surname, as in Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preußen (no comma), literally George Frederic Prince of Prussia. (the last three words being his surname.) And yes, they are used that way in everyday usage, except for royalist circles and glamour magazines, who put the "Prinz" before the first name. -- megA (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So why is there a comma after "Friedrich" in the title of this article? And why does the infobox call him "Prince of Prussia?" Completely ridiculous fantasy,there isn't even such a place as Prussia.Smeat75 (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No such place as Prussia? You must be joking. Surtsicna (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Prussia was a German kingdom ....Prussia was legally abolished in the 1940s...The end of Prussia ....In Law No. 46 of 25 February 1947 the Allied Control Council formally proclaimed the dissolution of Prussia"Smeat75 (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose, then, that places such as Bosnia, Occitania, Scandinavia, Dalmatia, Anatolia, Bavaria and Prussia are just a product of bored people's imagination. I am being sarcastic, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Bavaria and Bosnia for instance certainly do exist but there is no such place as Prussia any more.Smeat75 (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Bosnia exists just as much as Prussia exists - as an historical rather than administrative region. Surtsicna (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest you re-write the Prussia article and correct the section heading "The end of Prussia" and all references to Prussia being abolished, making it clear that it still exists as an "historical" region, just like it still has crown princes and Imperial and Royal Highnesses (in the deluded imaginations of monarchist fantasists).Smeat75 (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read Prussia (region) and then nominate it for deletion, as it is obviously a hoax. Oh, and nobody said anything about Prussia having a crown prince; the last one died many decades ago. Surtsicna (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It is worth noting that until he married a Roman Catholic, he was in the British line of succession. His sister, "styled" HRH (Her Royal Highness) Princess Cornelie-Cecile of Prussia, is 160th. Pretty far down, but she is still recognized as a princess for purposes of a royal succession by another existing monarchy. See http://freepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wakefield/history/britsucc.html As an aside, he also carries the "title" Prince of Orange, which is also shared by the Crown Princess of the Netherlands. Waterproof blue (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes he is a prince in a way since the wiemer republic ( that got rid of the titles) never really had a right to do so he is a prince as realated tothe royal family the prussian royal family is really and germany let him keep the title because prinz von prussian is aprt of his name and that what happen to former titles (KingOscarXIX (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC))

I looked up Article 109 of the Weimar Constitution and found "Noble titles form part of the name only; noble titles may not be granted any more. Titles may only be granted, if they indicate an office or occupation;" Nothing has been done since to change this. As this guy was born well after this was written he cannot carry a title.

So, these folk are not royalty. The ex-Kaiser carried on a fantasy for the rest of his life about still having titles, while successive German leaders making it quite clear he did not. Now it seems that many wish to carry on the fantasy for his offspring. I, personally, have just as much right to style myself 'His Serene Highness', indeed we all do. Rogers Nelson has much more right to use the title 'Prince', and Gerhard Schröder has more right to the title 'Prince of Prussia' though nobody ever though of him that way. These pages are full of factual errors, perhaps we should just dump them?

In short, allowing these people to use WP to be presented as anything more than citizens who just happen to be descended from an ex-Kaiser is making a mockery of Wikipedia. I see lots of talk on this subject, but nothing actually happening. Should we just go ahead and delete the pages on the German Hohenzollerns, or can someone correct them. Note: Some of the Hohenzollern descendants are fom the Romanian branch, these might be genuine? Supreme Emperor of the Five Galaxies kimdino (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia refers to people the way that cited sources refer to them in English. Most citations given for his nomenclature in English refer to him as "Prince", so that's how English Wikipedia refers to him. Ditto others. Information about his legal status and use of "Prinz" in Germany is provided, currently, in footnotes 1 and 6. FactStraight (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

He is the pretender to the throne of Germany. He is in the line of succession to the British throne (they changed the rules in 2015, so his Catholic wife is now no bar) Whether he is a ‘real’ prince or not, he is in the game, so to speak, and notable enough as such for inclusion in WP. Note that when in the Bundeswehr, he had the name of ‘Preusse’ (Prussia), similar to Brit princes serving as ‘Wales’. This all seems real enough. It is anyway part of the history of Europe. 213.205.240.202 (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

A very worthwhile conversation. Personally, I am strongly anti-monarchist and have always found it somewhat ridiculous to read that Leopold von So-And-So holds some title in a monarchy that was abolished a century ago. The British monarchy may be silly, but it is currently functioning, it is embraced by many of those who live under it, and it is recognized by other governments, leaders, etc. But it's flat-out ridiculous to imagine yourself king over a populace that abolished the office generations earlier. PurpleChez (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

That is why he is a ‘pretender’. He has never claimed to be a King - or a Kaiser, for that matter. He is in the same class as the Comte de Paris, who is not the King of France, but would be if the Bourbons were placed on a restored French throne. And you never can tell. In my lifetime, the pretender to the throne of Spain got his son on the throne when Franco died. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:EDDC:A6B1:9C5D:85E (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Focus on Property Claims required?
Should the article focus more on the property claims? In Germany he was known to the general public only after the claims surfaced in 2019, when major news outlets took this story up (and yes, way before Mr. Böhmermann took up the topic). Before he was mostly known to a special-interest group and their according news magazines (see that references are "Bunte" etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8070:88AB:0:55C1:890A:F81F:1C82 (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

While his grand-parents have historic relevance, he has none it itself. Just being a kid of a relevant person does not justify an article in the wikipedia (for comparison: The kids of Bill Gates are not even mentioned by name in Wikipedia while being rich and have relevant parents).

Thus I agree to the person above: Any relevance of Georg Friedrich to the general public is that the claims property rights on real estate and art artifacts currently in public ownership. only this gave him media attention in Germany outside of the yellow press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8070:88AB:0:4142:E519:7B85:416D (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Most people in former monarchies know who the pretender to the throne is. 2A00:23C5:E08D:8A00:19B7:8C05:3358:45D4 (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The head of the House of Hohenzollern has historical relevance. 24.4.136.172 (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)