Jump to content

Talk:Ernest II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleErnest II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 16, 2010Good article nomineeListed

Untitled

[edit]
  • He is famous as being the only European head-of-state to formally diplomatically recognize the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War.

What is our source for his personal action to give formal diplomatic recogntion? -Will Beback 00:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Raven explains the background. I'm not sure Raven's actions constitute formal diplomatic recognition of the CSA by the Duke. john k (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ernest II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    A few questions about some of the references
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Lacking information on his wife and marriage
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Some concerns with image licenses.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
General Comments:
  • File:ErnstIIofSCG.jpg has no source information so it's impossible to verify that the image is indeed public domain - the key here is publication date, not creation date.
  • Removed image - could not find any verification of date Green tickY
  • Wiki commons states it was painted by Winterhalter in 1842, which would have been the year she was married. Green tickY
  • File:1818 Ernst-09.jpg gives where someone got it, but there is no information on publication date or who created it, so like the above, you need to be able to verify that it's PD.
  • It states the photograph was taken in 1880, which allows it to be in the public domain. Green tickY
  • Replaced image with new one - wiki commons states the new image is from 1888. Green tickY
  • Considering the author Hugo Gerhard Ströhl died in 1919, his work should be allowed in the public domain. Green tickY
  • How is the stepfather or Ernest - von Hanstein, a commoner if he's got a title (Count)?
  • Von Hanstein was not created a count until his marriage to Louise. This may not be clear in the article however - Fixed it. Green tickY
  • Current ref 1 - Lundy - needs a publisher. And what makes this a reliable source?
  • Lundy is a source used frequently throughout Wikipedia. It is an independently-run website that sources all of its information. The parts I took from the website were sourced with C. Arnold McNaughton, The Book of Kings: A Royal Genealogy, in 3 volumes (London, U.K.: Garnstone Press, 1973), volume 1, page 276. Hereinafter cited as The Book of Kings. I do not possess this work, so have used the website to source it for me.
Heraldica.org is another independently-run website that is used throughout Wikipedia. Francois Velde has written works (like [1]) that prove his credentials as a scholar. He also cited this part of his site from Staatsgrundgesetz für die Herzogtümer Coburg und Gotha, vom 3. Mai 1852. (State Basic Law of the duchies of Coburg and Gotha, on 3 Mai 1852nd). His Knights of the Garter site is all well sourced. Green tickY
  • One concern is that there is little treatment of his marriage. The little bit that there is about it and his wife is in the caption to her picture. More could and should be said about this in the body of the work.
  • I actually tried to stay away from delving too much into their marriage, because I feel I do that too often in other articles. I did however add lots on their marriage to his wife's article. Is that sufficient?
  • Yeah, but its his marriage too... the childlessness obviously had an effect on him also. As it is, we don't hear anything more about it after it happens. Did he treat her kindly? Ignore her? Etc? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added more information about their marriage (in the 'Marriage' section). Let me know if that looks good. Green tickY
Basically a pretty sound article. Tends to be a bit wordy at points, and if you're thinking of FAC would recommend a copyedit or two as well as a Peer Review to help smooth down some of the wordiness.
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Passing it now. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Succession boxes

[edit]

Why should two trivial and pointless boxes be given the same prominence as only one that really matters? Why should the only box that actually means something, that concerns a actual office, be obscured by two boxes that add nothing but confusion? Ernest did not inherit (become heir) until 1844 and was not succeeded as heir apparent by Albert, as Albert was only heir presumptive. And what's next? "Eldest daughter of the duke" succession box? "Wife of the heir to the throne"? Such boxes diminish the importance of useful boxes; no wonder they're not used by other reputable Wikipedias. Surtsicna (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is all your opinion, isn't it? You have been removing all succession boxes to List of heirs of place all across wikipedia without a single person saying a word. There is no precedence to justify what you are doing and you are undoing the work of countless editors who have create these lists and added these succession boxes. Everything is your own opinion on what is relevant. I can't argue on the existent of these boxes on Medieval monarchs since I agree that succession was not well defined in medieval time, but you have no right in remove them from the articles on modern day royal heirs where succession laws are defined by law and the position of the heir to the throne is an important one. Citing George VI, Elizabeth II and Charles, Prince of Wales, we have the heir boxes and even a more trivial order of precedence box; I see no one arguing that the heir to the throne box obscures Elizabeth II's titles as Queen of the United Kingdom, and the rest of the Commonwealth. Get a consensus to remove them all from wikipedia, get the articles on List of heirs deleted, or leave them be. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have created one such list myself (List of heirs to the Spanish throne) and added such succession boxes to articles about Spanish royals, so please don't make it sound as if I only undo the work of others. I haven't seen anyone gain consensus for including these boxes either - users (myself included) added them according their "own opinion on what is relevant", and I don't see why I shouldn't argue that they're not. I came to realise how trivial they are after creating the list of heirs to the Spanish throne. You don't see anyone arguing that because the succession boxes in those articles are so overcrowded that they're hidden from the view - and yes, that trivial box is one of the reasons all others are hidden as well.
In cases where "succession laws are defined and the position of the heir to the throne is important", there will normally be an actual title for the heir apparent or heir presumptive to use (e.g. Duke of Cornwall, Prince of Asturias, Dauphin of Viennois, Crown Prince of Sweden, Hereditary Prince of Monaco, etc), and such title deserves its own succession box - because it is a title. If you look closely, you'll see that the central parameter in the box is called ttl (standing, of course, for title). And you are yet to address the concerns raised in my first comment. Surtsicna (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Order of precedence is not an office or title either, yet it is included in the articles for the British royals. To answer your first question; if on George V's aritcle "Heir to the Throne as heir apparent" can be place side by side with boxes like "Prince of Wales", "Duke of Cornwall", "Duke of Rothesay", "Duke of York", "Grand Master of the Order of St Michael and St George", "Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports", "King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions", "King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions" than I don't see why Ernest shouldn't have those boxes alongside the box on his title as Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And if you really want a title; Ernest was the Hereditary Prince (Erbprinz) of his father's duchies during his time as heir to the thrones of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha just like your example of Monaco. This book calls him "Hereditary Prince of Saxe Coburg Gotha". But I am definitely not arguing that if a title doesn't exist, it will be okay to remove them because George VI and Elizabeth II had no titles for their positions as heir to the throne, yet they still have the heir boxes on their articles.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that precedence succession box are used doesn't mean that they should be used and the fact that heir-boxes are used in some articles doesn't mean that they should be used here. I'd argue for removing them from alsl articles. Besides, this reminds me of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?. Surtsicna (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you expect me to do try to convince you something that you have obviously made up your mind on? The position of heir is relevant, accurate and not trivial (not as trivial as eldest daughter of Duke, which no one is arguing for) and we have established that in Ernest II's case there was a title for being heir. The fact that these boxes appear on this good article and three other feature articles, edited and reviewed by countless experienced and well-accredited editors who have passed these articles with the heir boxes and even more trivial boxes should show that you alone believe them to be irrelevant. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, it can just as easily mean that nobody else cares enough. I don't want you to try to convince me. That is not your duty; I do not own this article nor any other. I'd just appreciate if you responded to my concerns that, even if not trivial and not irrelevant, the box is till factually inaccurate. As "heir to the throne" (the person who inherited the throne), Ernest was preceded by his father and succeeded by his nephew Alfred. As heir apparent to the throne, he was succeeded by his grandnephew Alfred. Now, if Ernest did in fact hold an established title as heir apparent to the throne, then by all means feel free to make a succession box for that title. Who held that title before him and after him? I suspect that the next person to hold it was Alfred, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Surtsicna (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand that "heir to the throne" means, in most sources, heir to the reigning monarch as heir presumptive or heir apparent and does not refer to the reigning monarch who inherited the throne from a deceased monarch as you somehow wrap your mind around. It is not misleading, you are only making it such by misunderstanding the phrase. Search on google books gets you numerous books and authors using the term to refer to the heir apparent/presumptive to the throne; in this phrase "the throne" denotes the reigning monarch and the kingdom like "the crown" denotes a kingdom or a monarchy. There is a definitely a position in the duchy, official title or not, of an heir to the throne (the reigning monarchy), and the next one after Ernest would be Prince Albert not the next hereditary prince. Contemporary sources stresses the importance and relevancy of such a position in any monarchy regardless if the person was the Prince of Orange, the Prince of Wales or just a Princess Wilhelmina of the Netherlands. You hear reference of a person being heir to the throne or the heir-apparent or heir-presumptive regardless if they had an established subsidiary title, which should be given the same position as an office like "Commander-in-Chief" or "Honorary Colonel" which are not titles. I want you to revert your removals from this page and the other Saxe-Coburg & Gotha heirs (Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Albert, Prince Consort, Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, and Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) because of this. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are going to go nowhere with this, so you might as well go to the dispute resolution board and settle this matter once and for all. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#heir to the throne.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can also find numerous sources, including books, that refer to a Princess Diana. That doesn't mean it's correct. As for "official position", it is as official as the position of the eldest daughter of the English monarch (see Princess Royal). The subject of this discussion is being heir apparent or heir presumptive to a tiny German statelet and giving that position the same weight as to the position of head of such statelet. How about a succession box for being heir apparent or heir presumptive to the incredibly important and powerful Principality of Waldeck? I'm afraid to even check if there are such boxes already. Surtsicna (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is it would not be pointless, nor trivial and (most importantly of all) not a misleading succession box which would not serve to obscure the other boxes, and be actually relevant and useful. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course two boxes obscure the third one. That's hard to argue against. Whether or not they are pointless and/or trivial and/or misleading is something we obviously can't agree on if I keep explaining, citing and linking while your strongest arguments are "it's used elsewhere" and "it's not". Surtsicna (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not. Your argument that these boxes obscure the box on their reigning titles is solely base on your opinion, something that I have seen no other editor in Wikipedia believe. None of your arguments for removing them follow through, except your arguments on their removal from articles on medieval royals when succession laws were not firmly established (which was not the case for Saxe-Cobug and Gotha). Unless you can get a consensus to remove these boxes once and for all because you believer that hey obscure other boxes than you have no sound reason to remove them. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you seriously claim that a box is not less likely to be noticed and to attract attention when preceded by two other boxes compared to a box that is on its own, then this discussion is itself pointless. As I've said before, I haven't seen a consensus to add them in the first place. Surtsicna (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously anyone reading up on this subject understand the difference between an heir and an actual title holder. Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is already given the main focus on the infobox and the first sentence of the article. By the time a reader gets to the bottom, they can distinguish the difference between the "Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" and "Heir apparent to Saxe-Coburg Saalfeld" or the "Heir apparent to Saxe-Coburg and Gotha".--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the subject of the other articles where you remove the box from Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha only has one heir box, yet you removed it. Also you have no consensus to remove them. None of your arguments for removing follows through, thus your removal is unconstructive. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have consensus to add them. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. My arguments obviously do follow through, as evidenced and explained to you on the reference desk by several people who you nevertheless choose to ignore. Surtsicna (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I was listening. Your sole legitimate concern on the accuracy of the term "heir to the throne" can be solved by using the widely used colloquial meaning of the term stated by many users on the reference desk or by adding the word "apparent" or "presumptive" after the word heir as I have done here or the form used on Prince Arthur of Connaught.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those users confirmed the colloquial meaning of the word but also its legal meaning. There is no reason to give precedence to the colloquial meaning, and we usually don't do so. As I said before, Diana, Princess of Wales, is not called Princess Diana here; in that case, her legal name is given precedence over the much more common name, which is used colloquially. By excluding such trivial and pointless succession boxes, we're not favouring either meaning, nor are we losing much (if anything at all). In the version you linked to, the succession box is again misleading, i.e. factually inaccurate: Ernest was not succeeded by Albert as heir apparent. Albert was never heir apparent to anything. In fact, Ernest was succeeded as heir apparent by his grandnephew Alfred, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Heir apparent to Saxe-Coburg and Gotha = Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and using a succession box for that title would make at least some sense. Surtsicna (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok we will stick with the legal version and call him heir apparent then. I can't argue for Albert (because I can't find sources that said this, maybe application of the Saxe-Gotha Coburg succession laws is all that is needed), but Prince Alfred was heir apparent (if not presumptive) of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha according to sources; see this and more. You are probably going to argue that they were making it up or mistaken, by giving example of people called heirs apparent but were not legally so, but unless you can directly disapprove these sources, you can't state that Prince Alfred was not heir apparent.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A succession boxes for the "Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" would only include three people and exclude the heirs presumptive. It is like making a succession boxes for the Queens of the United Kingdom and excluding Prince Albert and Prince Philip because they weren't queens, that is why the colloquial and widely accepted term is used follow by "as heir-apparent/presumptive" on these succession boxes (like on Elizabeth II & George VI versus George V) so it would include heirs apparent and heirs presumptive. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And stop throwing opinionated words like trivial and pointless because that is not what I think nor do I believe other do either including the countless editors that have expanded and worked upon this page and other like it and left the succession boxes intact. And as for burden of evidence, I have provided tons already and also it probably time for people who remove stuff on wikipedia to be accountable for what they do too instead of those who tried to restore or revert a bad edit. Also that page you link, is for uncited information; I can merely cite a source that calls Ernest and all the other ones you remove heirs anything and there is my evidence. The rules would turn on you because the burden will fall upon you to find the evidence that either they weren't heirs or an academic source that states succession boxes for heirs on wikipedia are pointless and trivial as you have stated. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I have to argue that these sources are mistaken because they are. According to Saxe-Coburg and Gotha house laws, the throne descended by primogeniture and the duke's son came before the duke's nephew in the line of succession. Had Ernest II ever had a son, that son would have certainly succeeded instead of Alfred. Is that even disputed? Thus, Alfred could have only been heir presumptive, according to definitions of both that term and the term heir apparent. Besides, here are some sources that call him heir presumptive: [2], [3], several pages here, etc. What I'm saying is that we should take everything cum grano salis. This book, for example, calls the Duke of Clarence and Avondale "heir presumptive to the throne", which he wasn't in any sense whatsoever.
I would like to propose a compromise. The succession box would list Hereditary Prince Alfred as the next holder of the title, while mentioning the men who came in between, thus probably satisfying both of us (more you than me, but I don't mind giving in). How about that? Surtsicna (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guys,I'm here from the 3O board. On the question of whether the "Heir of..." succession boxes, I'm finding myself agreeing with Surtsicna that they shouldn't be in the article. I don't see the value added by them, because "heir of x" isn't really a real position; I don't think anyone actually talks about a person succeeding another as heir, they talk about a person succeeding another as duke, and then there's a new heir. Does anyone actually say that "Albert succeeded Ernest as heir"? I don't think they do, because "heir" doesn't really mean all that much in and of itself. Its significance is wholly dependent on a different position (in this case, the duchy itself) for its importance, and we already have a succession box for that. (As an aside, FAs aren't necessarily perfect; we don't have to follow their example). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. You are right, nobody really says that Albert succeeded Ernest as heir. I haven't even thought of it that way. Surtsicna (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
German royalty
New title
Creation of duchy
 Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
12 November 1826 – 29 January 1844 		Vacant
Albert and Alfred as heirs presumptive
Title next held by
Alfred
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ernest II, Duke 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ernest II, Duke 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ernest_II,_Duke_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha&oldid=1207130349"