Talk:Michael, Prince of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach

Translation of Last Name ?
von Sachsen-Weimar-Eisenach is his last name. The Lemma should be Prince Michael von Sachsen-Weimar-Eisenach Prince should be before his first name because it his only a formal address and not a part of his name. In Germany you may not use heraldic titles in your name unless they are part of the last name (which is not the case here.) --7Piguine (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * His German last name is Prinz von Sachsen-Weimar-Eisenach Herzog zu Sachsen, which - translated into English - reads: Prince of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, Duke of Saxony. --Equord 00:37, 17 June 2018 (CEST)

There is no such thing as "HH" anymore
The daughter of this person is not "Her Highness", there is no such thing since 1919, I took it out but it was restored so I am tagging the article for accuracy and neutrality.Smeat75 (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't take side on royal claims. Many former German royals are still addressed in royal styles at least by fellow royals or supporters even if the government no longer recognize these distinctions.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP does not "take sides", it summarises WP:RS, here is one of thousands of reliable sources that say that these German royal titles were abolished : Noble Privilege by M L Bush, Manchester University Press, 1983  "the abolition of titles coincided simply with the removal of the monarchy...The fall of the Habsburgs...and their replacement by republican governments...directly caused the elimination of noble titles in Germany".Smeat75 (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This article's lead says "Michael, Prince of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach .. is a German prince" - a simply breathtaking lie. There have been no German princes since 1919.Smeat75 (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The source cited in support of this allegation does not name the subject of this article, therefore it is irrelevant and inapplicable synthesis. Whereas, sources substantiating the attribution and use of princely titulature for this person have been added to the article. FactStraight (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The source does not need to list every single royal or noble title, it says plainly that they were all abolished.Smeat75 (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Suppose there were a WP article about "Matilda the Unicorn" and a reliable source were found that stated "there are no such thing as unicorns", are you seriously suggesting that it would be synthesis to therefore amend the article on "Matilda the Unicorn", clarifying that unicorns only exist in the imagination of various people, because the source did not name the subject of the article?Smeat75 (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)