Talk:House of Habsburg/Archive 1

Galicia
I think the wrong Galicia is linked to in this article.

'Galicia' here refers to an area now covered by south-east Poland and Ukraine around the city of L'viv/Lvov/Lemburg which was definitely part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire up to WWI, unlike the region of the same (English) name in north-west Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.154.69 (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2003 (UTC)


 * Actually, both Galicias are on the linked page. Look down further! . I suppose they could be separated and disambiguated? -- Someone else 02:23, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Constance/Anna
What about Constance of Autria/Konstanze of Habsburg, wife of Sigismund_I_of_Sweden? Shouldnt she be listed here as well? Or is it Anna? Could sb fix the genealogy of the Habsburg side of the Vasa famly? http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal5506 is this right? --Piotrus 16:52, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Current situation
While I'm not the one who could do it, I think it would be very interesting to add information concerning what has happenened to the Hapsburgs since their final dethronement.

What's it like to be a living Hapspurg, heir to one of the, if not the most influental family of all time? Alex404 05:16, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good job
Good job fixing all those links, Martg76. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 20:55, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category
I suggest creating Category:Habsburg. This would be quite useful I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Splitting
With the Habsburg catagoy, to clean up the article, it might be a good idea to move all the lists, to say members of the Habsburgs which would clean up the article. Crazynas 05:26, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

The lists are mostly already elsewhere, so it'd probably be fine to just delete them, so long as we link to the proper pages and are sure of what we're doing. john k 06:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maria Theresa: Habsburg or Habsburg-Lorraine
Is Maria Theresa properly a member of the house of Habsburg-Lorraine (as she is listed here) or of Habsburg? I know that Queen Victoria is generally considered a ruler of the House of Hanover; only her descendents are Saxe-Coburg-Gothas. Or did the new house come about when she married?

Also, while she was Empress Consort rather than Queen Consort, should Jfruh 28 June 2005 21:02 (UTC)


 * Maria Theresa is pure Habsburg. She married into the House of Lorraine, so her descendents would be H-L, but not her.--StanZegel 29 June 2005 00:43 (UTC)

Mistake
Nistake years as ruler of Hungary and Bohemia for Maria Theresia changed to real (1741-1780 and 1743-1780) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sargeras~enwiki (talk • contribs) 13:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Austrian Prince
There Is a funeral home near where I live the owners of it said that an Austrian prince lived there The prince began to make money in the coal industry in Scranton Pennsylavania I'm guessing some time in the later half of the 1800's does anybody have a clue to who this might be Dudtz 2:53 PM EST


 * "Austrian Prince" is very vague because "Prince" is ambiguous: it can be the son of a king, or it can be a rank in the peerage, or even a sovereign. Austria did not have the rank of Duke (Herzog) above the rank of Count (Graf), so those who were elevated above the Counts were given the rank of Prince (Prinz) instead. Thus in vernacular usage, an "Austrian prince" might imply a male relative of the Emperor (and thus a Habsburg-Lorraine), but in technical usage it could also be someone from any number of other noble families. If you can get some more clues, someone here will surely be able to help you. --StanZegel 20:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Mixing up Roman (that is German) Kings and Holy Roman Emperors
Neither Rudolf, nor the two Alberts were actually Holy Roman Emperors, because after their election as Roman kings they were never be crowned and the title "emperor elect" didn't exist at that time. Thus, it is wrong to state that those were Holy Roman Emperors (as it is done in the articleHabsburg) 85.124.176.170 22:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, that technically goes back to the question of what actually made a German king the Emperor...was it his selection by the electors, or a crowning by the Pope or someone else? If the last were true, i dont think by your thinking there was a Holy Roman Emperor after Charles V, and if that were true, if Francis II wasnt one, how could he have abdigated the office of it in 1806 if he were'nt Emperor?

I'm willing to allow that they all were Emperors, just not ones that were fully recognized by everyone.


 * Actually, the situation changes in the early modern period. Maximilian I was granted the right by the pope to call himself "imperator electus" (emperor-elect) in 1508.  This right adhered to all of his successors.  Of his successors, only Charles V bothered to seek a papal coronation, since a near-enough imperial title was available without one.  Though in formal documents and inscriptions these rulers are still referred to by their strict legal title of imperator electus, their contemporaries generally just called them "emperors," and so do later historians. --Jfruh 16:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks

rename article into House of Habsburg?
Shouldn't this article be renamed into House of Habsburg in order to be in compliance with other royal houses such as House of Windsor and House of Bourbon, as well as the categories themselves? Gryffindor 08:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I urge caution. Both of the other examples are currently reigning; in these cases the "House of .." is necessary for disambiguation purposes.  How important does a family have to be in order to be "House of ..."?  Is Hohenlohe important enough?  How about Rothschild or Hearne? Noel S McFerran 10:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that a family would have to be sovereign to get "House of". This would exclude the Rothschilds and Hearnes.  It would probably include the Hohenlohes, who were sovereign at least from 1803 to 1806, although I'm not certain how to deal with mediatized comital families like, say, the Castells, or the Erbachs. (I note that the Erbach disambiguation page links to the family at House of Erbach, which does not yet exist).  john k 12:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would support this article being renamed to House of Habsburg. Charles 16:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. House of Windsor disambiguates from Windsor Castle, Windsor, Ontario usw. The dynasty here is clearly the primary usage; we don't even have an article on the eponymous castle; the mentions Habichtsburg link back to here. Let's keep things simple, and avoid masking links. Septentrionalis 22:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For the rest, I propose condensing this discussion on Talk:Wittelsbach, where it seems to have started. Septentrionalis 22:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Queen consorts
Why are only French queen consorts specified? There've been Habsburg queen or empress consorts of many countries - Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, Bohemia, Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, Portugal, Sardinia, the Two Sicilies, Belgium, Bavaria, Austria, Saxony...pretty much everywhere in Europe except Russia, the British Isles, and the Balkans. john k 19:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And Catherine of Aragon. Septentrionalis 00:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Catherine was the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, and as such, was not a Habsburg, but a Trastamara. Otherwise she'd be called "Catherine of Austria." john k 11:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Old talk page post
The most concentration of people from GALIZIA in Brazil (ukraines-ruthens, polish and austrian) is the state named PARANA, in the cities of Prudentopolis and Curitiba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dietrich54~enwiki (talk • contribs) 00:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

France
Why does the box about the Habsburgs list France as one of the countries they ruled? The Habsburgs have only been consorts in France. The box should only list countries they were regent in. Emperor001 (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Founder
Why does the box say that the founder was Otto II, Count of Habsburg? He wasn't the first count. Why is he listed as the founder. Wouldn't the founder be the first cout? Emperor001 (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Habsburgs are catholicized jewish in origin: info added to article with TWO independent references and their links.
The origin of Habsburgs from the Pope's Pierleoni converted jewish banker family is now included in the article, backed by two independent, trusted references: the Meyers lexicon and F. Gregorovius's megawork on Rome. Both are rock solid and available online as page images, as well as codex format in any respectable large library. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever legends existed several centuries after the actual events (and Gregorovius just sais that 'in the 15th century it was related...'), it seems that the date of the foundation of the Hawk castle (about 1020/30 according to the town's official website) together with the time of life of Petrus Leonis (died in 1128) make this rather an anecdote. 109.79.10.133 (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted this assertion from the article because it violates the "exceptional claims" clause of Verifiability which states "Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources...claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them." and it violates the "contentious material" clause of BLP which states "Remove any unsourced material to which an editor objects in good faith; or which is a conjectural interpretation of the source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon a source which does not meet the standards specified in Verifiability (though see self published sources, below). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." The sources cited do not meet Wiki standards because they make a claim so contradictory to the prevailing view among historians and biographers that multiple, unimpeachable sources would need to confirm it. Moreover, there are living Habsburgs, nearly all Roman Catholics, whose familial reputation is embraced by this allegation, raising to a still higher level the quality and quantity of reliable sources needed to include it in the article. FactStraight (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Extinction of the male lines
Very recently, I changed the extinction of the male-line of the House of Habsburg from 1740 to 1780 as Maria Theresa (Holy Roman Empress, Queen of Hungary and Bohemia, Archduchess of Austria) was the last agnatic member of the House of Habsburg. While it is well understood that the males of the House of Habsburg when extinct in 1740, the male-line did not go extinct until 1780. A user, Mr. von Bibra, refers to German usage but hasn't quoted the particulars in his edit summary. I respectfully and amiably disagree and seek further comment and discussion in order to clarify and/or resolve this, as well as some of the other nuances of the wording. Thank you! 142.68.138.25 (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As I may be wrong, I welcome other opinions. Another solution is to reword it. I will double check the German series which uses the same terms to see if the uses the death of the last male or the last member of the family when refering to the extinction "in the male line". The article needs to be clear the original Habsburg family died out and other family upon marriage to the last of the line, broke with tradition took the name in an unusual way (subordinating the husband's name to his wife's). This name issue occured at the same period that Austria went to great lengths diplomatically to assure a smooth transition of power from father to daughter of power. --CSvBibra (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I check on of my references I referred to earlier. Genealogisches Handbuch des in Bayern immatrikulierten Adels, (Band XXV 2004) is very exact and precise. Two families are analogous. Pückler und Limbpurg (page 89) is a countly family which is labeled “im Mannestamme erloschen”. All male members have died but a daughter of the family still lives as of the date of publication. The other family, Fuchs von Bimbach und Dornheim (page 398) also has the same situation and is labeled “im Mannestamme erloschen”. This translates “in the male line extinct”. To be clear, the Habsburg family died out when Maria-Theresa died. The family became extinct in the male line when her father died.--CSvBibra (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I propose rewording it. It wouldn't be incorrect to simply say that the last male Habsburg died in 1740 and that the last Habsburg died in 1780. That should solve the problem, right? It would also be less confusing for the readers. Surtsicna (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Habsburg-Lorraine as a cadet branch of the House of Lorraine?
A number of succession boxes for monarchs of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine state that it is a branch of the House of Lorraine. Save for the descendants of Francis Stephen and Maria Theresa, are there any male-line descendants of the House of Lorraine? If not, the House of Habsburg-Lorraine isn't a branch of the House of Lorraine, it IS the House of Lorraine. Charles 17:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good question... Gryffindor  22:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There was a post that was on ATR, which is now apparently lost, that after a certain point in the 1700s or 1800s with the death of a member of the House of Lorraine that the House of Habsburg-Lorraine was the entire house of Lorraine. At that point, Habsburg-Lorraine was no longer a branch, senior or otherwise, of the house of Lorraine but an entire house all in itself. After that point, members of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine are members of the "top" house, if that makes sense. Charles 23:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the House of Habsburg-Lorraine is the House of Lorraine, but I think it needs its own separate article for historical reasons. It was politically significant enough for them to use the word Habsburg, even if they were not paternally Habsburgs. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Lorrainer in question is Prince Charles Alexander of Lorraine, he died in 1780. -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The general consensus with long-lived cadet branches is that they remain cadet branches even when the senior line goes extinct. Does anyone actually call the House of Bourbon the House of Capet? It is the only legitimate branch of the family left today (technically the Portuguese House of Braganza descends in the male line from the Capetians, but through two illegitimate family members). That obviously varies per each scenario, but concerning Habsburg-Lorraine, it is definitely called Habsburg-Lorraine even today rather than just Lorraine. It also should be noted that the Vaudemont family does have other, albeit junior, cadet branches. The previously ruling families of all Hesse were members of the family from a High Medieval division division. –  Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  01:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I take that last part back. I just was doing research on the Vaudemont family and the Hessians are descended from the Dukes of Lower Lorraine, not Upper, and are thus a different family. So yes, the house of Habsburg-Lorraine is the only surviving branch of the family. – Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  01:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Habsburg-Lothringen
Why is it called "Habsburg-Lorraine" instead of "Habsburg-Lothringen", which would be correct form as it had been used in the Austro-Hungarian Empire? It does not seem to make a lot of sense to translate a surname or family name... German speaking historians have ceised to translate foreign names some time ago and James I is hardy ever talked of as Jakob or Jacob. (The same goes for Charles=Karl) So how can we solve this dilemma? --Schmutzman (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard it referred to as Lothringen, only Lorraine. I think that Lorraine is much more commonly used (please correct me if I'm wrong).72.40.104.171 (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And I have never heard of it as "Lorraine", so there you go... Although the imperial family's name was also translated in Hungarian and Czech, just to metion two important languages of the Monarchy besides German, the name itself was, as far as I know, mostly used in its German form. At least stronger emphasis should be laid on that aspect.--Schmutzman (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you German or Austrian out of curiosity? In the English language generally the French form "Lorraine" is used when refering to the region and the house. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One might further note that Lorraine is in France, and is called Lorraine there. john k (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But historically it was called Lorraine by its French residents and Lothringen by its German residents. Lorraine was independent for most of its history and only in the periphery of France, not directly a vassal of it (well, maybe nominally). The people of Lorraine spoke both languages depending where they lived, hence the whole Alsace-Lorraine mess from 1870 until 1945. But in English-speaking countries, it is definitely called the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, not Habsburg-Lothringen. Why? I'd blame the French. – Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  21:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the English for the land in question is Lorraine, just as the English for Oesterreich is Austria.  There is no dilemma, merely a conduct problem.   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

History
Should we not aim to expand the historical material, as many readers will want a general history of House, without having to read through all separate articles of the individual Habsburgs, and the individual articles concerning history of various countries? At the present, what we have here is a very small history section, followed by a "list of Habsburgs", which could even be conceived as a separate article, and there is even an amount of repetion due to both history and the lists addressing same issues. Tropical wind (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the Hapsburg Dynasty? A short summary with detail would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.103.254 (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Male line descendants today?
Are there any male line descendants (even if by illegitimate children) of the House of Habsburg today? Notice that I am asking Habsburg, not Lorraine-Habsburg. - --Lecen (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so.--CSvBibra (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there were never many branches of the House of Habsburg in Austria so the family is truly extinct. It is possible, though, that another branch of the family survives in the House of Zähringen which survives today through the descent of the Grand Duchy of Baden. But this branch of the family, if it is such, has no legal rights to the Habsburg hereditary lands since the Habsburg titles came a few centuries after the division of the family. – Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  21:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the article about Otto von Habsburg, son of Karl, last Austrian emperor, it says that the Lorraine and Habsburg has a common male line ancestor, which would make both houses part of one dynasty, Is that true? So the House of Lorraine-Habsburg could be considered a branch of the late Habsburgs? --Lecen (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, according to every source I've read they do not have a common ancestor. The House of Lorraine emerged in the Lorraine region during Carolingian times while the Habsburgs emerged in Switzerland at a slightly later date. If you can find proof otherwise, I'd be very interested to check it out, but I have multiple sources that suggest otherwise. If that were the case, then the House of Lorraine would have succeeded to Austria anyway regardless of the marriage and the War of the Austrian Succession would have been less justified since a Salic line still existed. – Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  03:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You said that "another branch of the family survives in the House of Zähringen which survives today through the descent of the Grand Duchy of Baden". If that's the case. What is the common male line ancestor between them and the Habsburgs? --Lecen (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes,there are many descendants of the Spanish Austrians alone,and so far I have met one who's a teacher or retired already in Valladolid.His daughter,Pilar,whom I met has the same distinctive "Habsburg jaw" of their descendants.They were excluded from sucession,like many others.Through King Philip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.218.39.123 (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Don Francisco Vazquez de Molinar
In the article, Don Francisco Vazquez de Molinar is mentioned as a descendant of the Habsburgs. Citation is definitely needed, because it's hard to believe without it. Please see discussion of the article Don Francisco Vazquez de Molinar. --86.149.80.228 (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Images?
What happened to all the images? Have they been moved/removed? I must say I know not how to begin trying to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevmitch (talk • contribs) 04:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Coat of Arms
Is there a reason why the Coat of arms is displayed as facing to the right? I'm aware that in the German tradition, for instance, the arms can be turned to the right for various reasons (such as a layout composed of several coats), but if no such reason exists here I think the image should be mirrored to correctly face to the left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.173.116 (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Stray text
This text was in the section on Brazil:

The members of this family bear the titles Archduke (Archduchess) of Austria, Prince (Princess) of Hungary, Prince (Princess) of Tuscany (Imperial and Royal Highness). Descendants of morganatic marriages, except those granted specific titles such as the Princes von Altenburg, generally bear the title "Graf (Gräfin) von Habsburg-[Lothringen]".
 * Tuscan Duchy and Salzburg descendants

99.237.67.215 (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Source for dynastic motto
This source did not have the foreign language motto that was previously there. For ease of access, placing what was previously there, here. (Bella gerant alii, tu, felix Austria, nube!)

Xi-Arcturus (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The English version is a translation. The Latin distich, sometimes ascribed to Matthias Corvinus but apparently dating from the 16th century, is the one usually quoted. I don't know if the phrase was ever used as a real motto by the Habsburgs themselves. Iblardi (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Leuthari I
Duke of of Alamannia (died 554) was the ancestor of "The House of Habsburg". See Duke of Swabia article. Böri (talk) 08:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Emperor of Mexico
Habsburg-Lorraine is a branch belonging to the house of Habsburg, it is obvious that the prinicipal house given the name of the Archduke and his family taken as the main house of Hapsburg, not only I added the house, I added a small link that leads to Habsburg-Lorrane page but this home should not be removed by the fact that confuses people is a different house when is an extension of the house Habsburg ---dam- (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Habsburg-Lorraine is a house that stems only from the female line of Habsburgs, namely Maria Theresa. They were known simply as House of Lorraine prior to marriage of Francis to Maria Theresa. It is a completely different house that adopted the name Habsburg. Furthermore this article deals with the original Habsburgs which died out in the male line in 1780....as it is clearly emphasized in the infobox. There was no Empire nor Emperor of Mexico until 1822. Shokatz (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I just wrote this descends house of Hapsburg by a woman, which is the same house that ruled Austria, the same Leopoldo I wanted his daughter to be married Maximilian of Hapsburg consider that at the time was the most powerful European house , this goes against what you are putting on an article which incidentally is a mess , the house of Hapsburg in 1780 ceased to exist , where is your reference to this? not only considered that the house did not disappear, if the central branch that you consider missing at all I see right that you remove the house decidende that line , which would raise I would do an article with the old branch touching only issues of old house of Habsburg , but nothing I see this house right you delete the item ( which is not the only one with this quirk but of which you are determined to remove) repeat to you, consider it right to create another article on the historical basis removing ALL branches but leave the article with such desendencias remarcadas vex because historically there is no document on this integro us which we can reference And please, do not reviertas before reaching a consensus ---dam- (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggest you actually read the article carefully...with understanding if possible. It clearly says in the opening lead paragraph: The House of Habsburg became extinct in the 18th century. The senior branch ended upon the death of Charles II of Spain in 1700 and was replaced by the House of Bourbon. The remaining branch went extinct in the male line in 1740 with the death of Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI and completely in 1780 with the death of his eldest daughter, Maria Theresa, and was succeeded by the Vaudemont branch of the House of Lorraine. The new successor house styled itself formally as House of Habsburg-Lorraine (German: Habsburg-Lothringen), although it was often referred to as simply the House of Habsburg. The infobox also states clearly that the House of Habsburg ended in 1780. The consensus is already reached. Now stop with your disruptive editing. Shokatz (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not dispute the timeline of the Habsburg but also seems a bit closed on your part you do not understand that the house down the house of Hapsburg where in this article refers to the House of Habsburg - Lorreine. I propose this: create an article that speaks only about the period of governorship of this house ( 18th century ) but this article tweak to make emphasis of the ruling houses decienden it as well as a link that period of governance in Article Habsburg- Lorraine is a household item Lorraine eliminating the term of influence that the house of Habsburg, and not only would arrange this term , if not you would support this userbox in the Duchy of parma that are in the same problem but for some reason you have not discussed , in a nutshell , I think it should be the maintenance staff , I intend to publish this article so that it established branches but not to make the item that I propose

---dam- (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Shokatz, don't you think it's time to report -dam- for breaking the 3 revert rule? I mean, he obviously does not intend to stop edit-warring and try to gain consensus before making controversial edits. Surtsicna (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that Shokatz is answering when reversing and I did the same falling into a3 revert on a topic I want to discuss in the most civilized way talk page, just me being reversed despite not answering my proposal I contradict to eliminate the rule of mexico and not the duchy, the maintenance Template will place as it is an article I'm tweaking into a sandbox and do not hesitate to report me, I also shall complain that I somewhat feel that you are missing to another wikipedia rule, since for more than propose or try to talk to you, just a rvierten unilaterally,I'm always talking and when changes are made correct an item you certainly will need a lot of maintenance ---dam- (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but your English is terrible and I have absolutely no idea what you are saying. I literally cannot understand you, which makes any discussion impossible. That appears to be irrelevant anyway, as you are obviously not interested in discussing anything. You either have no idea what status quo is, or you intend to manipulate us by claiming that it means the opposite of what it means. Same for Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, which actually applies to you. Surtsicna (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Feel free to report him. I really have no will or strength anymore to deal with this kind of crap. I believe he is guilty of more than just 3RR, this is now just purely disruptive editing as he is trying to impose his own POV going directly against the present sources on the page. Shokatz (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to report him. I really have no will or strength anymore to deal with this kind of crap I really want to leave the article to make it as best as possible and with your help stay better prepared but to say that my arguments are crap do not think you have the best argument to improve or be friendly with me ---dam- (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not say your arguments are crap, I said your behavior is. I've tried to explain to you several times, in edit summaries and here on talk page, that this article is about the original Habsburg family, not the one after 1780 which did indeed had a member of the family who was proclaimed Emperor of Mexico. There is a separate article about that family. Now when two people explain to you several times what is in plain sight stated in the article itself and you still continue to disrupt the article in the manner you did...what else can one say about your behavior? Pause a minute and think about it. Also I don't want to sound rude but your English seems rather inadequate to understand everything what is being conveyed to you or what is present in the article. This fact alone is the reason why I did not report you already. Shokatz (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When it comes to the house of Habsburg, there's a lot of various contributors making comments regarding the European and Mexican lineage and trying to parse the ambiguous information; it's diverse and kind of hectic. So, in order to move forward in this debate, it's probably the best idea to take a break from the article and let another contributor take the wheel or just ignore the tone and look at the facts. In case we're thinking about reporting each other, remember that it won't help the article. No one is getting personal; we're all here to advance and contribute to wikipedia. Why wouldn't we? Who's coming to wikipedia saying, "I can't wait to burn on Shokatz today"? Anyway. The lineage parsing problem is more important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Complete turing (talk • contribs) 10:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are 10 months too late...this "debate" and the entire non-issue has been resolved long time ago. Shokatz (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my English, My point is this and write it as clear as possible, do not think for any good that the branches of the house of Hapsburg not appear, eliminating some historic part of the house itself, I think that should also be disambiguated in the userbox by I think that also deserves a maintenance item, I plan to do this week, including an article only enter the time that the house of Hapsburg governed kingdoms of Europe in some but not completely remove the house and even in many parts of Latin America this home is considered the reigning at that time in Mexico in the 19th of launga way accommodate because if you check the other kingdoms, the empire of Mexico in some way correct because if you check the other kingdoms, the empire of Mexico is not the only one having this problem, sorry if ever I saw or felt which for me was no hostility at all, you just want to improve the article, a great greeting for all ---dam- (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Inbreeding?
There doesn't seem to be anything in the article about the Habsburg's notorious practice of endogamy. I was quite interested in when the practice started and stopped. Can anyone advise on where to look? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.38.32.3 (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

European royal families are all related to each other (I think). There are only so many families to pick from after 1.5 thousand years.72.40.104.171 (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not so long ago, before the rise of urban sprawl, when people lived in isolated villages they would often marry their cousins and so on. Thus monarchal houses are no more "inbred" in their history than the majority of people in general. The propagation of the theme is essentially a form of newspeak for republicans and people who hate hierarchy in general to try and discredit the system of monarchy. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, monarchs officially practised outbreeding towards the maintenance of peace treaties. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Although, 59.38.32.3 does have a point. Name any other European dynasty that willingly married uncles and nieces. -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The sixteenth and seventeenth century Habsburgs were pretty uniquely inbreedy. That being said, there were some other uncle niece marriages going about - the House of Savoy had some, if I recall correctly. john k (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

i worked in the museum of the castle of ambras in innsbruck (tyrol) last year, where they have a huge gallery of portrays of habsburgs from about 1350-1800AD. i think there was widespread inbreeding during the 16./17th century. the faces of these people get stranger with every decade, and this despite the fact, that the artist probably tried to "charme" his depicted object. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.232.38.35 (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Name any other European dynasty that willingly married [[Philip IV of Spain|uncles and nieces" Certainly. The Braganzas in Portugal did it quite often:

Queen Maria I of Portugal(born 1734, died 1816, ruled 1777-1816) married Pedro III(born 1717, died 1786, King Consort 1777-1786), her Uncle (her father's brother) Jose, Prince of Brazil(born 1761, died 1788), eldest son of the two above, married Maria Bedadetta, (born 1746, died 1826) his aunt. (his mother's sister.) Queen Maria II of Portugal (born 1819, died 1853, ruled 1826-1853) was engaged to be married to Miguel(born 1802, died 1866, proclaimed himself king 1828, de facto king until 1834), Duke of Coimbra; her uncle (her father's brother). Repudiation of this engagement by Miguel led tro the Migueslist wars later on.

As far as I can tell, it was an iberian custom that was usual to there and not used elsewhere.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Even the Brits did it once. The Duke of Gloucester maried his niece Princess Mary during the Regency years.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, she was his first cousin. Surtsicna (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It is pure politics to omit all references to Habsburg inbreeding. They are literally famous for it; Google search "habsburg inbreeding" for starters. In an article over 10,000 words long, with such extensive sourcing and illustration, what is the objection to including citable references to the notorious incest of the Habsburg dynasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.42.217 (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

redundancy
I removed "also spelled Hapsburg," because it is identical with the spelling that proceeds it. Nick Beeson (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

History
This document does not make sense at all. It sounds like propaganda to give credit to a particular entity the Hapsburgs of Austria, neglecting all other peoples involved in the making of empires, especially the Spanish Empire. It sounds like the theater mentioned in a town that always refers to it as the most famous in the world. It is not even remotely famous, nor is it even moderately really good. Moreover the venue is relatively plain and poorly designed, not an actual theater at all. I know for a fact that a Spanish empire existed, but does not reflect single Spain at all. How odd since the language of Spain is Spanish. Many names, places and events have been removed from this article which could mislead the public at large. This is how Wikipedia gets a bad reputation in purporting bias, single, misleading  information. Thank goodness, books have been written by actual scholars on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.185.221 (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on House of Habsburg. 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/20110907140352/http://www.habsburg.webs.com/ to http://www.habsburg.webs.com/

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) 11:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on House of Habsburg. 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/20030623055155/http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/Rulers/hapsburg3.html to http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/Rulers/hapsburg3.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) 07:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Habsburg origin in Switzerland

 * Counts of Baden (1040-1172) (South of the Rhine river)
 * Kyburgs in Baden (1172-1264)
 * Habsburgs in Baden (1264-1415)
 * County of Baden (1415-1798)

In 1415 the Swiss Federation ended the Habsburg power in Baden South of the Rhine river. Droveaxle (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Descendants
Is it true Rutger Corné Heinsius and Linde Irmgard Heinsius, who nowadays are a rare species out from the Houses of Bourbon, Habsburg, Arragon, Heinaut and Hohenstaufen, beside all the others, also earn the title King or Queen of the Kingdom Italy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.100.67.82 (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Page split recommendation
Perhaps it is just personal preference, but I find all of the illustrations of different arms (most too small to see the actual relevant differences from monarch to monarch), crowns and ducal hats (do we really need to show the same ducal hat four times, almost in succession, and the exact same string of four crowns twice?) to be very distracting in terms of just reading about the Habsburgs. They break up and spread out the text in a manner that is disproportionate to the little information value they provide. As such, I would recommend a page split, that this page deal with the Habsburgs as a historical entity, and that there be a separate page along the lines of List of coats of arms of the House of Plantagenet, for all of the heraldry and regalia, the arms, crown, ducal hats, etc., which would allow them to be displayed large enough to see the detail, without them interrupting the flow of this page. Agricolae (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It has been some time since this post but I agree with this 100%. This page is currently a total mess, way too many images and the article itself is extremely confusing. IMO almost all images (except those really necessary) should be removed and transferred to a different page or something, describing Habsburg heraldry. Also there needs to be a clear distinction between Habsburgs and Habsburg-Lorraine which at this point is kinda moot which results in constant edits confusing one with the other. Shokatz (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this a typo?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by LutherVinci (talk • contribs) 01:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Apparently so. I deleted the second instance—thank you for reporting it (^_^), and I'm sorry that it took so long for someone to respond. —DocWatson42 (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Bit of POV agenda pushing going on.

 * After the First World War, the House of Habsburg was a vehement opponent of National Socialism and Communism. In Germany, Adolf Hitler diametrically opposed the centuries-old Habsburg principles of largely allowing local communities under their rule to maintain traditional ethnic, religious and language practices, and he bristled with hatred against the Habsburg family. During the Second World War there was a strong Habsburg resistance movement in Central Europe, which was radically persecuted by the Nazis and the Gestapo.

He was a National-Socialist, he would have opposed them because they are aristocrats who deem themselves to hold power purely because of birth and not election, and were the ruling class who profited from the exploitation of the working class whom the National-Socialists represented. Nothing to do with 'traditional ethnic etc' practices. In fact their policies were very clear about keeping people's identities intact (just in their own areas, and not encroaching into Germanic territory or meddling in German peoples affairs). We are victors over the vanquished - yet that does not give us the right to lie and twist history. That is something they would do, I'd like to think it's something we've moved past doing - although damned if we don't have a habit of it. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hapsburg
Does anyone object to this article being boldly moved to "House of Hapsburg"? Lev!vich 01:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I strongly object. As discussed in the Spelling section of this talk page, "Hapsburg" is an archaic anglicization considered historically indefensible. Matuko (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Short Description
Is it really accurate to describe the House of Habsburg as an "Austrian dynastic family"? It wasn't solely "Austrian" in origin or in influence. Matuko (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Galleries
I am with User:Cristiano Tomás on this. Maybe they could be spun off to something like List of Habsburg family members and List of Habsburg-owned properties, but the galleries (both of them, the people and the buildings) in this article are excessive, disrupt the flow and generally WP:NOTGALLERY. Agricolae (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Abssolutely! This is a text book definition of excessive imagery. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Date of Georgenberg Pact is 1186, not 1286
The section "Pivot to Eastern Alpine Duchies" states "With the Georgenberg Pact of 1286, Rudolph secured for his family the duchies of Austria and Styria." However, the linked Wikipedia article on the Georgenberg Pact and other sources give its date as 1186. As Rudolph IV lived 1218-191 according to this article, the Georgenberg Pact was 100 years too early to be the reason Rudolph secured Austria and Styria for the House of Habsburg. Michael-ktza (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Conversion of sections into separate articles
This article is pretty bloated with a ton of lists. Perhaps sections such as the list of Habsburg rulers and heraldry could be moved into their own articles, with short descriptions of the most important parts within the main article itself? Roniius talk to me 17:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Spelling
Hapsburg or Habsburg - which is more commonly used?
 * Six of one...I think the p has an edge in English, but not necessarily "right" - JHK

Google sez:

Habsburg 32,100 Hapsburg 16,400

And that includes filtering for pages in English only. -- Paul Drye

A Google count merely shows the extent of the spread of the misinformation, not the validity of it. StanZegel 20:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) The correct form is definitely "Habsburg". The "p" is an error derived from the hardness of the German pronunciation. No Habsburg would ever have called him/herself a Hapsburg.


 * And no "Hapsburg" would have referred to Wien as Vienna, or to Osterreich as Austria, but they were speaking German, and we are speaking English, and the proper spelling of the word in English, as confirmed by the New York Times style manual, is Hapsburg.John Paul Parks (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Guardian style guide specifies Habsburg. O&#39;Dea (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Although some English-language dictionaries may describe Hapsburg as a "variant" spelling, I suggest they are merely taking the easy way out by accepting or legitimizing the frequent misspelling. In German it is invariably spelled Habsburg, and that is the way the family itself spells it today. (I have exchanged correspondence with Dr. Otto v. Habsburg, the head of the house, so I have authoritative examples.) If we were needing to transliterate from, say, Russian to English where there are different symbols, there would be legitimate reasons to disagree upon the best spelling using latin letters (e.g. the Germans spell Gorbachev as Gorbaschow), but because German already uses the same symbols as English, there is no reason to spell a German name in English differently than the original.

The reason for the misspelling is the usual one involving surnames: transcription into one language of the sound of a word pronounced in another one. Just as D and T are linguisticly similar and often interchanged, so are B and P. Thus Habsburg becomes Hapsburg or even Hapsberg!

An extreme example of this phenomenon is the surname Schultz whose sound transcribed into Polish is the surname borne by the author Tad Szulc. The distortion continues when those unfamiliar with Polish diction try to pronounce what they see written (they'd come up with the sound "Zulk" instead of Schultz) and someone hearing them say it writes down in English what they heard: Zulk. After years of correcting folks, the Szulc family gives up and changes the spelling because it is easier than correcting everyone. Eventually Zulk will become Sulk and so on. (It is by that same process that Geronimo and Herman and Jerome are all forms of the same name.)

If we want the Wikipedia to be authoritative, I think we need to state clearly and unambiguously the fact that the correct spelling is Habsburg and that the other spelling is not an "acceptable alternative" but is just plain wrong. I did such an edit at the start of the Habsburg Article, but another person changed my frequently misspelled as phrase to also spelled. I think frequently misspelled as is more accurate, but I will not start an edit war by changing it back; I will leave that for someone else to decide and do.

StanZegel 20:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * In fact, what we want for Wikipedia is to cite authoritative sources rather than substitute the judgements of Wikipedia's editors for the judgements of those authorities. English language dictionaries are, in this case, the proper authorities, and the two I've consulted have Habsburg and Hapsburg as variants. Can you cite an English language dictionary that calls "Hapsburg" a misspelling? If so, we can cite it in the article. In fact, if you'll look at the history of the article, this question has been gone over before: we're not a dictionary, we're not a style guide, and our job is to report what the dictionaries or style guides say, not decide which of them is correct (now) or which may have been correct throughout history as both Habsburgs and Hapsburgs were written of. - Nunh-huh 23:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, the Guardian style guide specifies Habsburg. O&#39;Dea (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Except that it's not an issue of decision that all versions other than the sole native one are simply not the right spelling. We can certainly document that Hapsburg has found its way into English, but it's still wrong to insist that an outdated spelling that hasn't been right from the start should be mentioned on equal terms with the canonical one. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:12, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It is if you can't find an English-language dictionary to cite, or a usage guide that states that "Habsburg" is preferred and "Hapsburg" is deprecated. In the absence of such a citation, we can only document that the words are listed as variants. The assertion that "Hapsburg" is a misspelling is simply erroneous, which is why I removed it; if someone can find a citable authority that "Habsburg" is the preferred variant we can attribute it and insert that opinion. What we don't want to do is insert our own (unattributed) opinions. - Nunh-huh 13:42, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The Guardian style guide specifies Habsburg. O&#39;Dea (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If you don't think Wikipedia should bother documenting preferences between words, why would English dictionaries? After all, dictionaries just list words and provide information about them, it's the encyclopedias that discuss topics. Habsburg and Hapsburg barely even qualify as English words. Our article discusses the German family under their German name; an old English word that became from the loanword needs to be qualified as such.
 * FWIW, my copy of the OED doesn't even include the word. It only has 1K pages, but still. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   22:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * English dictionaries do document preferences between words, usually on the basis of "usage panels" who advise them. Such panels determine when a word is archaic or perjorative or a variant spelling. Both dictionaries I have cited give both variant spellings (Habsburg/Hapsburg). It's simply incorrect to call either a misspelling. The OED unfortunately doesn't include most proper nouns, so you're right that it's of no help here. - 06:16, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that "Hapsburg" is a largely archaic anglicization, while "Habsburg" is the correct German spelling, which is, at this point, used almost exclusively in English. john k 15:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * That's my understanding as well, and I'd like to find a reference that states it as such. It's not a misspelling, but a variant spelling that is in the process of going out of style. - Nunh-huh 18:06, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Besides the b' pronounced somewhat like a p, the u in Habsburg should also be pronounced like the u in Schutz. I say this because I saw someone typing Hapsberg, just as example, but still Hapsberg is pronounced very much different than Habsburg. 81.69.203.77 20:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous - there should be no reference to the word Hapsburg. It's simply wrong, as any German or historian could tell you. This makes a mockery of Wikipedia. Tdgtdg 17:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Documenting a common misspelling is perfectly legitimate, and in no way mocks the integrity of an encyclopedia. Cleduc 22:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Another question. Why do several spellings say Habsburg-Lorraine? Shouldn't it be Habsburg-Lothringen (Lothringen the German spelling of Lorraine)? If we're going to spell the first half of their name in German, shouldn't we do the same with the second half? After all, that is how the Habsburg family spells it. Shouldn't we spell it like the family itself spells it? Emperor001 12:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Habsburg, just because it is used in German, is not only a German spelling. It is also an English form of the name. The correct form is of Habsburg-Lorraine but von Habsburg-Lothringen when preceded by von. Charles 23:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

On the same page, she uses the spellings Cologne and Treves for the German cities.
 * Spanish has Habsburgo; English has Hapsburg.
 * I personally learned the spelling Hapsburg 40 years ago, around the time of my first visit to Austria.
 * When I first saw "Habsburg" at Wikipedia, I thought it was vandalism, and I was going to revert it.
 * Here we have noted English historian Dame C. V. Wedgwood in her book The Thirty Years War, Jonathan Cape, 1938; Pelican/Penguin 1961:
 * page 50: "an opposition to the Hapsburg in Germany"
 * page 51: "the pivot of the Hapsburg problem", "always a Catholic and always a Hapsburg"
 * page 74: "the outspread eagle of the Hapsburg"
 * To me personally, the spelling "Habsburg" still looks wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
 * Varlaam (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC) (Canada)
 * you need to look at The HaBsburg monarchy, 1809-1918: a history of the Austrian Empire by the very famous English historians AJP Taylor. The main scholarly publishers, editors and scholars in recent decades prefer "HaBsburg" Rjensen (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I have probably read more books by the often-disparaged Taylor than you have.
 * The point is not what people are doing now; the point is that the correct traditional spelling in English is Hapsburg with a 'p'.
 * If we now say Trier and Aachen in English, instead of Treves and Aix-la-Chapelle, those changes have occurred since I was a boy in the 1960s, and it does not make the older English spelling wrong in any way.
 * Many of the commenters, as we will call them to be nice, above clearly have no knowledge of traditional English usage, and, like others from many languages not only German, feel that English WP is some sort of free-for-all, where the English language has no conventions of its own, and so speakers of every other language are free to come here and impose the standards pertaining to them onto us, the native speakers of English.
 * Hapsburg is correct English; it is not a misspelling as people above seem to think.
 * If English is now moving closer to the spellings of other languages, then that is a recent development and it is sad.
 * English-speaking people do not travel around Europe demanding that everyone else call London "London", instead of Londres, Londra, etc. etc., although they may do it out of pure ignorance. Other languages have their standards and conventions; English has its own.
 * Varlaam (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Varlaam, citing CV Wedgwood (1938) wants to revise the 1938 edition of Wikipedia and he is free to do so. The rest of us are working on the 2012 edition and we follow the standards in use today -- as shown by leading historians, editors and publishers. Anyone interested in the topic should sign up for [], where hundreds of scholars  deal with advanced issues regarding the old empire. Rjensen (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Jensen, you are not a native speaker of English, are you? My English is nuanced, and you keep missing my nuances.
 * Therefore, on that basis, I am going to downplay your more argumentative comments, and give you the benefit of the doubt.
 * Also, AJP Taylor is notable for being a shitdisturber, an iconoclast, a showoff. So the fact that Taylor uses "Habsburg" does not really prove much. It could simply be that he is sending the message "Hey, I'm AJP, and I'm smarter than you are."
 * Was Wedgwood knighted? Yes. Was Taylor? You tell me.
 * By the way, I like Taylor.
 * Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have another book here, A History of Europe, by H.A.L. Fisher.
 * The book has a picture of "William II" on the cover.
 * I personally would call him Kaiser Wilhelm II, but calling him Emperor William II is not an error or a misspelling, in spite of what people who don't speak English very well think.
 * Varlaam (talk)
 * Here we go.
 * The Collins Atlas of Military History.
 * First US edition by the Smithsonian Institution, 2006.
 * For the Americans, the Smithsonian is like another Gospel.
 * Page 190: "Hapsburg empire"
 * Happy now? I want to remake the world in the image of 2006. Varlaam (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * no not happy--the book has no author and is attributed to the Collins UK staff (the Smithsonian merely reprinted it). Real books have real scholars as authors -- & they have to be specialists on the Habsburgs, not generalists who cover all of world history.Rjensen (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Some factual information on this question as to the prevalence of actual historical usage in the English language. The National Library of Australia has recently made available a huge digitised database of old Australian newspapers from the period roughly 1803 to 1955. Searching for "Habsburg" turns up 3749 occurences in old Australian newspapers ( notably including references to the steamship Habsburg ),  and searching for "Hapsburg" turns up 30,993 occurences in old Australian newspapers. Anyone can replicate this search at trove.nla.gov.au. Eregli bob (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Search various sources by decade, e.g., Google Books, The New York Times, etc., I get the impression that the Habsburg spelling (in English at least) is a recent phenomenon, going back maybe 10 or 15 years, and even then has not quite caught on. Before the Second World War, the English language had a great number of Anglicized foreign proper nouns which have since become de-Anglicized, e.g., Bombay became Mumbai, etc. However, this trend has, since the Reagan-Thatcher era, slowed down, and in some cases reversed. Thus, the Italian region of Marche is once again known The Marches. Quite a few English-speaking members of the Hapsburg family spell it Hapsburg when writing in English, Habsburg when writing in German, because that's how they learned it in school. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The New York Times style manual specifies Hapsburg.John Paul Parks (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Guardian style guide specifies Habsburg. O&#39;Dea (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

pedantic baloney. Hapsburg is as correct as Habsburg. 204.195.42.156 (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox problem
There is an incredible pair of nosebleed entries in the article infobox which lengthen that box very painfully. It stretches halfway to the moon.

There are 19 entries in the Country list and a quite unbelievable 131 entries in the Titles list! Is it necessary to have all this crap in the infobox?

The effect of this is that insane amounts of frustrating scrolling is required to reach the paragraph following the infobox. This is painfully unergonomic and reader-hostile.

Is there a way to make these two entries disappear inside  links where all this information may be hidden by default but the reader may reveal the lists if interested by clicking on the links? O&#39;Dea (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh no! The liberals have gotten to this article also!

 * "Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation", even there there are far more American than British users. Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[3]. Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words."

You just can't make this stuff up. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So are they trying to say that the Habsburgs are an American topic, or didn't they think through the comment carefully enough? Wait...don't answer that question. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There are people outside of Britain who use British spelling too ya know. Ever hear of the British empire? 1/4 of the world's population less than a century ago? God you yanks need to get over thinking you're the centre of the bloody universe. 59.38.32.3 (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I say steady on old man, one doesn't want to antagonis/ze the colonial cousins, what? When the bally old red haze has cleared, one might spot that Ta bu shi da yu was quoting from the strange parallel universe of Conservapedia, not endorsing it. And anyway, speaking as Brit I'm much more familiar with the Anglicis/zed spelling, which is surely no more a misspelling (or an Americanism) than Bavaria or Munich. Toodle pip. Pterre (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently things have improved at Crazipedia. "Hapsburg" now redirects to a page on the "Habsburgs". I guess they've caved. Woot. – Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  03:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We do not necessarily think we are the center of the world, but we speak our own language, and we are entitled to our own spelling. We thought we settled the question of our independence in 1776.John Paul Parks (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You don't speak your own language. You speak the English language, as do millions of other people around the world. If it were your own language, it would be called the American language.
 * Nuttyskin (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Habsburg monarchy has an RFC
Habsburg monarchy has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. User23242343 (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Falsely Attributed Quote
"Even so, he viewed himself as German, and once wrote to Napoleon III "Nein, ich bin ein Deutscher Fürst"."

He never said that as it is misattributed,the proof being in German Wikiquote.

I can translate the relevant part, here:

Falsely attributed:

"Sir, I am a German prince." - allegedly on 12th of August 1908 in Ischl to Edward VII of England when the latter tried to dissuade him from his alliance with the German Empire, e.g. in: Walter Wiltschegg: Österreich, der "zweite deutsche Staat"?: der nationale Gedanke in der Ersten Republik, Stocker, 1992, p. 41. The quotation was already used spelled that way in the Reichsrat on 16th of July 1907 with a very vague reference to its origin. Q: Stenographic Protocols - House of Representatives - Minutes of Sessions. House of Representatives - 14th Session of the XVIIIth Session on 16 July 1907, p. 1337 (alex.onb.ac.at) In the spelling "Sire, I am a German prince" with direct reference to Franz Joseph ("a still living Austrian emperor"), but without reference to an event, the quotation occurs in connection with engagements of the imperial family in non-German parts of the monarchy in an article of the "Deutsches Nordmährerblatt", which was confiscated and is therefore reproduced in a parliamentary question to the Minister of Justice. Q: Stenographic Records - House of Representatives - Minutes of Sessions, House of Representatives, 331st Session of the XVIIth Session on 12 May 1905, p. 29465 (alex.onb.ac.at) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brat Forelli (talk • contribs) 21:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)