Talk:House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

House laws
Wouldn't the House Laws exclude members of the British royal family due to unequal or unapproved marriages? http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/HGSachsen-CG.htm#1917 Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably, but that's unclear since it would have meant that the issue of the marriage of George V to Mary of Teck would have been excluded. Since that marriage occurred during the reign of Queen Victoria and with her approval, it is unlikely that her son, Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh as reigning duke, or the Coburg court would have declared the marriage or its descendants morganatic. Nor is there any evidence that this marriage was deemed unequal in the duchy or its descendants deemed excluded from the ducal succession. Subsequent marriages are a different matter. The duchy's house laws allowed marriages with members of "good countly" families. That phrase is ambiguous: it could mean members of Reichsgrafliche families only, i.e. families which were immediate within the Holy Roman Empire. But it could mean families of comital rank whose male-line was documentably noble extending back a certain number of generations or to a certain date: the phrase "good countly" was theoretically subject to interpretation by a Coburg dynastic council which never convened: pragmatically, the interpretation of the head of the ducal dynasty (until 1917, also a reigning sovereign) was probably all that mattered. So it's unclear if the marriages of British princes into the comital Bowes-Lyon and the ducal Montagu-Douglas-Scott families might have been considered ebenburtig. Marriages to brides whose paternal rank was less than comital could not claim dynastic rank based on the monarchical house laws. But like all other deposed dynasties of Europe, such standards were gradually lowered from the late 19th century to the present, so if the British marriages (e.g. that of Prince Michael of Kent to Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibniz) occurred as those changes were being implemented, it is arguable whether they, too, could count as dynastic: the present head of the family considers himself dynastically married to Fraulein Carin Dabelstein, and no objections appear to have been raised by other Wettin dynasts. However, all of this is moot since, as Velde's Heraldica.org site shows, in 1917 British dynasts were all excluded by a change in Coburg's ducal succession law, based on their citizenship in hostile nations -- obviously retaliatory against the UK's Titles Deprivation Act 1917. FactStraight (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The House laws probably recognized the dynasticity (if that's a word) of foreign royal marriages. They recognized (as far as I know) the marriage between Prince George, later George V and Mary of Teck who was a scion of a morganatic marriage. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

House of Kohary?
I don't see many sources using that term to refer to the descendants of Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha as the house of Kohary. In fact, I am unsure of the succession to the title of Kohary ever came to Feridnand I and his descendants. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The term House of Koháry is commonly used in historical and dynastic texts. But post-Napoleon, it became an informal reference to a cadet branch of the sovereign ducal House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Although the father of Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha's fiancee, Countess Maria Antonia von Koháry, was raised by the Austrian Emperor from count to prince in 1815, apparently in order to enable Ferdinand to marry her dynastically, that title expired with her, and was not heritable by her descendants. It would have been deemed unnecessary to provide for descent through the female line of a title inferior in rank to the dynastic title ("Prince/Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duke/Duchess of Saxony") all of her children would inherit from their father. She was, however, heiress to a very substantial fideicommis in the Slovakian province of the Kingdom of Hungary, the proceeds of which Ferdinand's descendants continue to enjoy, and its wealth rendered them good partis on the Euro-dynastic marital market. FactStraight (talk) 05:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Membership
I think there is a question of membership in the house. It appears many members may not be dynasts according to the house laws. Of the four extant branches two(those of British and Belgium) have renounced their rights and changed their name; in short they no longer consider themselves members. Additionally, these two branches appear to be excluded from succession to the Duchy, according to the house laws. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So far as I know, the British Coburgs (including the Windsors, Gloucesters and Kents) never renounced their succession rights to the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha: on the contrary, negotiations and laws were adjusted to preserve their claims, until World War I. Even though at that time the governments of the two monarchies pressured their rulers to reciprocally extinguish their hereditary titles, and Coburg actually terminated the Britons' dynastic rights, the princes themselves renounced nothing. Whether they consider themselves members or heirs of the Coburg dynasty is legally irrelevant: their dynastic rights and membership persisted until terminated by Coburg's 1917 anti-hostile nations' law and/or by marriages which failed to comply with Coburg's house laws (including the requirement to obtain permission to marry -- not clearly exercised or enforced since the wedding between Prince George, Duke of York and Princess May of Teck in 1893 -- and not clearly required due to Coburg laws which exempted the many dynasts who ruled over foreign realms of some -- but not entire -- subjection to the reigning Duke's familial authority). Ditto the Belgian Coburgs, who stopped using their Saxon titles during WWI, but renounced nothing -- although, again, presumably they failed to request permission to marry and their marriages into the marquisal family of Dona Fabiola de Mora y Aragon and the ducal family of Ruffo di Calabria may have qualified given the Coburg standards in force at the time of those marriages and that, later, of Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant to a d'Udekem d'Acoz, untitled member of a baronial Belgian family. FactStraight (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the opinions of sovereigns are legally irrelevant. It is clear that in on March of 1917, the British members lost their succession rights in Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and then in July of that year the British King renounced all German titles for all Queen Victoria's British descendants. Thus, today it appears that the if British Coburgs, have no claim on this title. Now it is not clear to me the extent which a person can renounce a title for his descendants, but it seems that neither the ruling Duke nor the British sovereign, or even the British Coburgs themselves claim membership or succession rights. Should not this be made clear in the article? Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The opinions of sovereigns are determinative ipso facto when they are absolute monarchs. Otherwise their opinions are relevant only insofar as they are allowed by extant law or given effect by new legislation. As I stated, Prince Albert's British descendants lost their succession rights in Coburg when that duchy's legislature passed a law depriving them of those rights, so I concur they have had none since that date. The British king had no authority to deprive Germans of their German titles in Germany, but every right to ban their use in British realms. Don't confuse "titles" with "succession rights": the first may simply be left unused (British peers only acquired the right to renounce their titles for themselves, within 1 year of inheriting it, in 1963, but the British sovereign cannot even unilaterally change the terms of inheritance of a peer's title -- let alone deprive a peer of that title), while succession rights are not normally at the disposal of monarchs at all but require legislative action to divert (Germany was an exception: dynasts and nobles could unilaterally renounce their rank -- but their sovereigns' could not deprive them of it against their will): witness the fact that Edward VIII's abdication was legally meaningless until passed by Parliament. FactStraight (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So those small german duchies changed their composition and name lots of times. Does their "house name" or "surname" change everytime the name of the duchy changes".Eregli bob (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

House of Braganza
The Braganza-Coburg as you call them are part of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha as the Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov are part of the Holstein-Gottorp family which are part of the House of Oldenburg. Other "cadet lines" are included on the box like Bulgaria and Germany, I see no reason why Portugal should be excluded.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The Portuguese titles should remain on this page for the same reasons the title Emperor of Russia is on the House of Oldenburg page. I understand the Portuguese view that the House of Braganza never ended but I think that is an issue too controversial for one editor to decide. I support the status quo until something can be agreed upon. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. FactStraight (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you mind chiming in and giving your own opinion on Talk:House of Aviz too.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Aviz era in Portugal pre-dates my area of study/interest. Sorry. FactStraight (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You guys have your way. Tell them that the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha were the King-Emperors of California for all I care. I give up. Have lovely editings, thanks, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made it so once more (it seems there was another revert somewhere in February 2013). If the British and Belgian monarchs, that changed their names and titles after WW I but are technically members of this House are included, so should, for consistency, be the Portuguese monarchs. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I seriously don't understand your intentions Cristiano Tomás here. You seem to be of the party that Prince Ferdinand's descendants were not Saxe-Coburg and were continuations of the Braganza line of their mother Maria II of Portugal, but you proliferate Wikipedia with links to House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha which by it's name actually contradicts the continuation of the House of Braganza and is a name use by historians who support the fact that with Maria II the Braganza line ended and a new Saxe-Coburg male line began with her son Pedro V. After you lost the argument above, you argued that the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha are separate houses therefore warranting the removal of the Portuguese titles and realm; please look at House of Wettin, House of Oldenburg and many other parental houses in Europe, they include the titles and realms of every branches regardless the fact that articles for each separate branch already exist. The Russian Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov doesn't recognize the send of the House of Romanov yet their title and realms are include in the House of Oldenburg article. The Austrian Habsburg-Lorraine doesn't recognize the end of the House of Habsburg yet their titles and realms are included in the House of Lorraine article. I know their is a dispute for the House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and if you want to mention it, go ahead and add something on that article. The fact their is a dispute that their are historians and writers who think that the Prince Ferdinand's descendants were part of the Saxe-Coburg line means they should be included here along with other disputed branches: the Windsor, and the Belgian and Bulgarian royal families. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It may very well be so that the descendants of Maria II and her husband Ferdinand II were considered full members of the House of Braganza as far as Portuguese dynastic law was concerned, but logically they must have been recognised as members of the House of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha as well. They did have the Wettin titles, which must have been recognized by Portugal. They were in line to the throne of SC&G, a state which succession rules and titles were diplomatically recognized by Portugal. They would hardly have let their Queen marry Ferdinand if that were not the case. Also the House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha article states that the royals descended from Maria II and Ferdinand used their titles as Dukes and Duchesses of Saksony... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I restored Portugal to the succession box adding that they ruled under the name House of Braganza. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. 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/20130928044129/http://www.sachsen-coburg-gotha.de/en/ to http://www.sachsen-coburg-gotha.de/en/

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) 12:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. 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/20080618013738/http://www.rferl.org/newsline/2002/07/5-NOT/not-260702.asp to http://www.rferl.org/newsline/2002/07/5-NOT/not-260702.asp/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214010212/http://www.bulgaria-gateway.org/en/browser.php?state=content&id=500&type=article&lang=en&topic_id=1&cur_pos=%2F to http://www.bulgaria-gateway.org/en/browser.php?state=content&id=500&type=article&lang=en&topic_id=1&cur_pos=%2F

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) 07:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Tsardom of Bulgaria
While it is occasionally translated as "kingdom", the Bulgarian country only ever had one person to officially hold the title of king (https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%BD). Bulgaria is a country of Caesaropapal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesaropapism) heritage. Thus the title of Tsardom would be more appropriate as a Tsar is equivalent to an emperor not a king.(Sorry, I'm bad at editing. I'm also not sure what you would consider adequate citation as that information is mainly present in high-school textbooks.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.13.205.17 (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Grammar
The first two sentences of the article read as follows:

"The House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha ... is a European royal house. It takes its name from its oldest domain, the Ernestine duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, its members later sat on the thrones of Belgium, Bulgaria, Portugal, India, and the United Kingdom and its dominions."

The red comma (,) should be a period, followed by the start of a new sentence. 2601:200:C082:2EA0:4175:AB30:8B7C:6D98 (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

King of Australia
There was no separate title King of Australia until the Statute of Westminster was adopted by Australia in 1942. Grassynoel (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Continued Reign of in the UK?
The article’s second paragraph states that in the house’s reign ended in the UK upon the death of Elizabeth II.

However, according to House of Windsor: On 8 February 1960, some years after both the death of Queen Mary and the resignation of Churchill, the Queen confirmed that she and her children would continue to be known as the "House and Family of Windsor" In other words, Charles III is considered a continuation of this reign.

I guess it is complicated, because Elisabeth’s decree applied to the House of Windsor - which was how the British monarchy renamed their house in 1917 - and thus have no bearing on descendancy from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha’s perspective.

On the surface there appears to be a discrepancy between the House of Windsor and House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha pages as to whether the reign continues with Charles III. Is it worth adding a comment to this page to clarify about the apparent discrepancy? A Carbine Flash (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)