Jump to content

Talk:Emich Kyrill, Prince of Leiningen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page title

[edit]

Berliner Morgenpost calls him "Fürsten Emich zu Leiningen", while Der Spiegel says "Fürst Emich Kyrill". Primary topic for Prince Emich of Leiningen would be either Emich Carl, 2nd Prince of Leiningen or Prince Karl Emich of Leiningen, not the subject here. So I suggest moving this article to Prince Emich Kyrill of Leiningen. I don't see anyone else numbering princes of Leiningen. I think that needs to go. Kauffner (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with the titles Prinz and Fürst. - dwc lr (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The form of the title is exactly why we don't have someone like Charles of the United Kingdom at "Prince Charles of Wales". It implies something he's not (a junior agnate rather than the "head" of his line). Seven Letters 17:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this rule is absurd. We have Charles, Prince of Wales even though the rest of the world calls him "Prince Charles". Kauffner (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Charles is two kinds of prince. He is a cadet prince (of the United Kingdom) and a substantive prince (of Wales). We generally make this distinction in English between 'the' prince and 'a' prince with where we place the title. Some languages, like German, have different words. For instance, we could speak of, in German, Prinz Karl (von Großbritannien und Nordirland), Fürst von Wales. Seven Letters 20:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know what it says in WP:NCROY. But no one else does it that way. Look at Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein. He is a Fürst, so we give him in the "name, title" format. But to each and every source, he is "Prince Hans-Adam II". Kauffner (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are presenting the same information but making it immediately clear whether or not someone is head of their line. That is that. Seven Letters 14:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"7th prince" is nowhere in the RS and implies that this is a title of nobility. Legally, "prince of Leiningen" is just his name. But I guess making that "immediately clear" is less important. Kauffner (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are not bound by German name laws. Seven Letters 13:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But everyone is bound by something that is called "reality". And in reality there are no princes of Leiningen but just people who bear the name of "Prince of Leiningen". Which also means that is doesn't make any sense to number them, which never was a common thing to do in the german nobility anyway with the exception of ruling princes. It is common in the UK to have the 11th Earl of Whatever but not in the german tradition. 87.187.43.222 (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move: Emich Kyrill, Prince of Leiningen

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Emich, 7th Prince of Leiningen → Emich Kyrill, Prince of Leiningen – Germany abolished titles of nobility long ago, so legally “Prince of Leiningen” is the subject’s surname. The style “7th Prince” is not found in the WP:RS, but is adapted from the rules for titling British peers. I don't see any mention of the subject in English-language news media. The format of the proposed title is adapted from that used by the RS for Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia, the German pretender. See Wall Street Journal and Irish Times. Georg Friedrich is also detitled nobility, so the same issues arise. As for the style “Emich Kyrill", this is from Der Spiegel, which gives him as "Fürst Emich Kyrill" (Prince Emich Kyrill). Kauffner (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose the number is used in sources such as Almanach de Gotha and Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels for instance. This seems to be the correct format for nobility on Wikipedia. - dwc lr (talk)
Some other sources for the number [1] - dwc lr (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In Handbuch des Adels, he is Emich Kirill Ferdinand Hermann 7. Fürst zu Leiningen. The genealogy people obviously have their own style for these things. To follow it would suggest that his notability is primarily genealogical. The current title doesn't follow genealogical style anyway. Kauffner (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wouldn't exactly refer to this as a noble title because Leiningen was a territory at one point. I think the issue should be addressed at WT:NCNT rather than piecemeal. I do, however, believe that the format Name, Title of Designation should be maintained for heads of houses. Seven Letters 21:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The intention of that was for ordinals referring to the given name. Seven Letters 15:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline refers to pretenders to monarchies. But in IMO the underlying principle is that format elements which suggest that a pretender holds the title for real should be avoided. Kauffner (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He did have the title for real. He possessed it extralegally and as the heir of a documented and historic dynasty. Nothing about it is illegal. Seven Letters 13:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He was a titular pretender. He never actually held the title. Jenks24 (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He holds the title but does not have any legal privileges. Seven Letters 02:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emich_Kyrill,_Prince_of_Leiningen&oldid=1200054084"