Talk:Franz von Bayern

Titles

I thought that titles are recognised in German law, being stated on birth certificates.

I believe he does use the titles of Bavaria, but as for the title of "King Francis II of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland" he does not. Espeically that of France since i believe, the current monarchs of the United Kingdom droped that title. As it was a moot title anyway since France was a republic at the time they droped it.

Since August 1919 all titles of nobility have been illegal in the German Republic. However, surnames based on former titles of nobility are still legal. Since the death of his father in 1996, Franz uses the surname "Herzog von Bayern" (which translates as "Duke of Bavaria"). He is legally "Franz Herzog von Bayern".

In spite of the fact that titles of nobility are illegal in the German Republic, they are very widely used there (in contrast to Austria where this is not the case). Franz is commonly called "Herzog Franz von Bayern" (Duke Franz of Bavaria) by the German news media.

Franz has never used any of the British titles which are accorded to him by the Jacobites. Noel S McFerran 11:51, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

First of all: titles of nobility in Germany are not illegal, they simply do not exist. Instead, former titles are part of the family surname. The family surname consists of the former title that was awarded to each member of the noble family (thus, Prinz/ prince, not Herzog/ duke or König/ king). That was the rule developed by laws passed in each German state after the revolution (This is an example of how these laws looked like: [1]). So the family name of the Wittenbachs was Prinz von Bayern. Legally, it is next to impossible to change that family name, as can be seen on the argument I put down here. So Franz' surname still is Prinz von Bayern. Now one may call him Herzog or Duke or Symbol or whatever, but one has to make a choice: either use his real name, which is Prinz von Bayern, or use an alias under which he is known, which could be Duke of Bavaria (in English on English WP), but not Herzog von Bayern. And by the way, German WP calls him Prinz von Bayern, because by all acounts of verifiability that is his real name, and people that are interested in him recognise him under this name. Yet I am afraid I fight a lost cause here, simply because most people that know a person such as Franz Prinz von Bayern are over-monarchistic. (I have nothing against monarchy in principle, I just don't believe in calling people by fantasy names if these names give a wrong impression about this person's status). Blur4760 23:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And regarding Albrecht: now that's a tough one: Albrecht either still was a duke, because he exceptionally retained the title after the revolution, a possibility given in some state laws for people holding titles at the moment of the revolution (in that case write Duke of Bavaria, which would not be a title of nobility, but rather a personal title to humour the person), or use the family name, which is of course Prinz von Bayern. Blur4760 00:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Naturally, I can't find the source where I read it now that I have need of it, but my hazy understanding was that there exists something of a breach between the de facto and de jure usage of noble surnames in Germany. The most obvious divergence is that created by sex: under the strict terms of the law, a female would, as I understand, be obliged to call herself, z.b., "Marietta Freiherr von Altmarck". A quick Google-assisted perusal of the present von Süßkind-Schwendi (from the same quiet backwater of Swabia as my family) suggests that females in fact use the feminine forms Freiin and Freifrau, rather than Freiherr, in their surnames. So in this subset of cases, usage favors the harmonization of the surname with the sex of the person, a deviation from the strict de jure form. I was under the impression, although perhaps I may be corrected on this, that changes in surnames as if noble titles still existed were generally respected in *custom*, if not in *law*. Choess 01:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are partly right. It is my understanding as well that, strictly speaking, the declination for gender is not required by the letter of the law. That is just common practice. However, this change is made by the civil servant who issues the birth certificate. So the daughter of a Freiherr von Altmarck would already receive the legal name Freifrau/ -in von Altmarck. There is no need for her to call herself other than by her legal name. A change from Prinz to Herzog as a surname exceeds this spectrum of discretion enjoyed by civil servants. That can be seen in the court cases I quoted in my entry on Mr McFerrans talk page. But of course, anyone is free to call himself whatever he wants. It is not illegal for a Prinz von Altmarck to call himself Herzog von Altmarck or whatever he chooses. Such is just not his legal name. So legally, Franz' name cannot be Herzog von Bayern. It is just an alias he choose for himself. My point is that it would be illogical to follow his choice. WP should use his legal name (Prinz von Bayern) and the name under which he is allegedly known (Duke of Bavaria). Blur4760 01:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the three official content policies for Wikipedia is no original research. As Wiki-editors we merely gather and summarize what has already been written about topics. I know of no scholarly source which makes the claim made by Blur4760 (which may well be correct - but that is not the point). All the sources with which I am familiar (and this is a subject where I do have a certain expertise) claim that Franz's legal surname is "Herzog von Bayern". They may all be incorrect, but as long as that is what all the sources say, then that is what has to be included in Wikipedia. We're just not allowed to engage in original research. If there is a source which states something similar to Blur4760, then it would be appropriate to cite that. But as long as the majority of sources say the legal surname is "Herzog von Bayern", then that is what it has to say here. Noel S McFerran 02:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a good argument, which I accept. However, German WP has decided to name him Prinz von Bayern, for one simple reason: Regardless of what the majority of sources may say, the law quite clearly states that his surname has to be Prinz von Bayern, and he is not allowed to change that name without a serious reason (see also de:Adel). It is widespread to refer to someone as prince or duke or Royal Highness in Germany, even though it is common knowledge that that in fact cannot be their legal name. We can keep Herzog von Bayern, but on the risk of being incosistent between German and English WP. (And by the way, currently, the article states that Franz would be the rightful ruler of Great Britain. Shouldn't it be England, etc.?)

And let's put it another way: Name me one source that really claims that his actual legal name is Herzog von Bayern, not just a source that calls him that name. Because I have provided a law that states his name has to be Prinz von Bayern and court cases, which reflect common legal knowledge and conviction that he would not be allowed to change his name for a trivial reason. For me, a German, Herzog von Bayern sounds like original research, as long as that is presented as his legal name. I do admit that he may be known as the Duke of Bavaria (and accordingly, in German as Herzog von Bayern), but not as his legal name. I know of no other former ruling house where the legal surname is not Prinz..., and I know of no case where a change of the legal name on your birth certificate was granted on the account that you have to abide by house rules, which is however exactly what you, Mcferran, claim has happened. I have another source that describes again why he couldn't be called Herzog von Bayern when he was born, and why he couldn't change his name later [2]. Blur4760 10:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Blur4760 is right. Of course, there are indeed people that are officially named "Herzog von Something " (Württemberg, e.g.) in today's Germany. That is because that title was not one that could only be achieved by being a firstborn (i. e. not a „primogenitur“ title) son/daughter. Those have been declared illegal, and are only used by the former nobles as a private hobby, as are all the "styles" like "Ihre Königliche Hoheit" (HRH). In the Wittelsbach family, the Herzog title (dukedom) was a primogenitur title, hence it was officially abandoned in legal documents, and the offical surname of the Wittelsbach family is "Prinz von Bayern", or "Prinzessin von Bayern" (female forms are allowed, I guess because "Franziska Prinz von Bayern" would look just a bit too stupid). If government members and other public persons use "Herzog von Bayern", it is because they are a) unaware of the legal situation or b) think they are being polite, or probably rather c) because they secretely like the idea of still having a nobility in Germany. Other examples of noblemen named incorrectly and illegally much throughout the German political life and, sadly, press, are "Fürstin Gloria von Thurn und Taxis" (right: "Gloria Prinzessin von Thurn und Taxis"), "Fürst Georg von Waldburg-Zeil" (right: "Georg Graf von Waldburg-Zeil"). As to the Baden family, I am not so sure, since "Markgraf" seems not to have been a primogenitur title in the grandducal family. Hence "Markgraf Maximilian von Baden" may even use kind of a right name (relly correct would be "Maximilian Markgraf von Baden", of course). In any case, his son Bernhard, who calls himself "Erbprinz", is either "Bernhard Markgraf von Baden" (if the name is official), or "Bernhard Prinz von Baden" - then his father, the so-called margrave, would also be "Maximilian Prinz von Baden"). Why "NOR" is respected more than factual accuracy in en.wikipedia, remains a secret to me. It's one of the numerous reasons I dislike this project, as opposed to many other projects in the Wikimedia family that I contribute a lot to. --AndreasPraefcke 12:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Andreas is right. When I wrote "I know of no other former ruling house where the legal surname is not Prinz..." I meant "I know of no other former ruling house where the legal surname is not (insert non-primogenitural-title, in most cases, but not neccessarily, Prinz)...".Blur4760 13:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Several points:

1. I readily concur that the no original research policy is a significant limitation on editors. In the worst situations, it can result in the continuing spread of error. But on the whole I think it is a reasonable policy.
2. This morning I received an email from a person who works in the Verwaltung des Herzogs von Bayern (Chancery of the Duke of Bavaria). I had asked if the legal surname had been changed after Albrecht's death (I specifically mentioned in my email the legal surname and the fact that it is difficult to change it). The response was " "Herzog von Bayern" is correct. It has been changed after HRH Duke Albrechts death, before that it was "Prinz von Bayern". " This of course counts as "original research", but I hope that it will put to rest certain concerns that the article was inaccurate.
3. Since Blur4760 says that it is very difficult to change one's surname in Germany, the response from the Chancery would suggest that something unusual happened.
4. "Duke of Bavaria" is not actually a primogeniture title. It is one of several titles which by right (i.e. under the monarchy) belongs to all dynasts of the Wittelsbach family (just like Pfalzgraf bei Rhein). It is just that it is not generally used, and therefore is "available" as the title used by the head of the family.
5. The legal surname of Franz's brother Prince Max is "Herzog in Bayern" since in 1965 he was civilly adopted by his great uncle Duke Ludwig Wilhem in Bavaria.
6. Article 109 of the Weimar Constitution says "Adelsbezeichnungen gelten nur als Teil des Namens und dürfen nicht mehr verliehen werden" (Noble titles form part of the name only; noble titles may not be granted any more). There is nothing suggesting that the head of a family cannot have a different title, and therefore a different name, from the cadet members of the family; certainly that was the case with Rupprecht Kronprinz von Bayern. (I readily admit that it is a vast oversimplication - indeed, actually, an inaccuracy - to say that titles are illegal).
7. Jacobites have no objection to the use of the term "Great Britain" - as long as this is understood to mean a personal union under the sovereign and not an organic union of England and Scotland. It would certainly be wrong to use "United Kingdom". James II, James III, and his sons all used "Great Britain" on many occasions (including on their tombstones). Noel S McFerran 14:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If the Herzog von Bayern's secretary response to a precise question is that his legal surname is indeed Herzog von Bayern, than I withdraw any of my objections. I take your word for it, Mr McFerran. As this case is, however, unusual, we should maybe put a footnote on the site, explaining that this name is confirmed as the legal name of the family by his secretary.

Regarding your second to last point: the fact that by birth, all members of former noble families have the same family name is a result of the specifications of the Civil Code. All members of a family bear the same family name, unless that name is changed by marriage, adoption or decree. Thus, at the moment of birth, Franz must have had the same name as his father. Any later name change is, as you concur, highly unusual, but seems to have taken place several times throughout his life. Rupprecht was a special case, because he actually held the title of crown prince at the moment of the revolution. However, Kronprinz was not his "family name" (ie name of his family). That can all be seen in the law I linked above (which admittedly is not from Bavaria, but they were more or less the same throughout Germany). Blur4760 14:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, here an article which may be interesting for those, who can read German [3]. It is a text from the 'Historic Bavarian Lexikon' and says that Albrecht, son of Rupprecht, prince and oldest son of the last Bavarian king, took the title (and name) Herzog von Bayern or Duke of Bavaria. From this time the surname (in this line of the familiy) was also Duke of Bavaria and not Prince. Although a prince with the fictious right to became king, he must be called Franz Duke of Bavaria correctly. (In the other lines of the familiy the old surname exists still). Greetings Phoe 15:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

misleading and imaginary claim to Cyprus and Jerusalem

Certain busybodies (who apparently do not appreciate that aforementioned claims of Jacobites, as well as the Wittelsbach inheritance & tradition, are a sufficient load) also attempt to create Franz a claimant to the long defunct kingdoms of Cyprus and Jerusalem, as he descends from their kings, although he is neither the heir-general nor the heir-male to that line of succession. His claim would come from the same Savoy source as the Jacobite succession. However, since the heir-general line of Cyprus etc diverted from Savoy in 1499 and passed finally to the Prince of Ligne de La Tremoille, and the heir-male is the present head of House of Savoy, tho assign Franz that claim is untenable. 62.78.104.45 09:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arrest in March or October 1944

"In October 1944, when Germany occupied Hungary, the Wittelsbachs were arrested and imprisoned in the concentration camp at Oranienburg.' This statement was switched to "March 1944" by an anon. editor with a checkered career. Can anyone verify the actual date? --Wetman 06:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The original phrase "In October 1944, when Germany occupied Hungary, the Wittelsbachs were arrested" was misleading. Germany occupied Hungary in March 1944, but the Wittelsbachs were not arrested until October. I think that the present phrase "In March 1944 Germany occupied Hungary, and the following October the entire family including Franz, now aged 11, were arrested" captures this. Noel S McFerran 22:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I should have added that the actual date of the arrest was October 6 (although I don't think that this is important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia article). Noel S McFerran 22:25, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Image description

Today, somebody changed the image description to say that Franz is "the Jacobite heir to the throne of the United Kingdom, but does not assert his claim" (it previously said "heir to the throne of England"). There is no Jacobite throne of the United Kingdom (since Jacobites believe in separate thrones of England, Scotland, and Ireland). Since Franz's Jacobite connection is not mentioned in the opening paragraph, it seems inappropriate to highlight it in the description of the image. Noel S McFerran 12:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Religion?

This may be a very silly question, but it does not mention his religion? Is he Catholic? I think this is important to the article, especially in regard to the "Wittelsbach Dynasty today" part and Greek Orthodox. - Animagentile (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he's Catholic, and an active one. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Does but not

If the man makes no such claim, is he not a pretender?
ThisMunkey (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"pretender, n. : One who sets forth a claim, especially a claimant to a throne." - No, as he has not set forth a claim I don't suppose that he is a pretender. RayBarker (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Better source for 1997 name change?

The english wikipedia article states "In 1997, after the death of his father, he changed his surname to Herzog von Bayern (English: Duke of Bavaria)" but the German article does not. I have asked for sources here under "Aktuelle bürgerlicher Name? Quelle?". The english sources are a a Usenet message from alt.royalty but with no source, so a more verifiable source would be nice. Note I am not looking for discussion on what title is used, or what the media call him, only on whether there was a civil name change in 1997 and if so, a source. An exact quote (in German) from the second source "Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Band 141, Fürstliche Häuser Band XVIII. Limburg an der Lahn: C. A. Starke, 2007, page 2" that makes it clear the name change was a civil one would also be good. -84user (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a letter from one of his (former) staff confirming the name change - but that would count as original research. There is no doubt that he has changed his name - there is plenty of evidence in the way he is referred to in publications. The only doubt may be whether he has legally changed his name. The current text of the article does not use the word legally. Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

But even if the name change has taken place, the correct name of this article should be "Franz Herzog von Bayern". The translation of a non existing German title into English seems to imply (in English) that Mr Herzog von Bayern is not a commoner, but a duke - and we all know he isn't.

Note 1 in the article states wrongly that Herzog is a title. It is not a title, but just a part of the surname. Skuipers (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear that the title is "non-existent". Germany did not abolish the nobility, it merely abolished their privileges, and the German state recognizes their hereditary titles only as legal surnames. That's different from Austria, the Soviet Union and France, which all explicitly abolished nobility and titles (but note that French law recognizes and regulates hereditary titles -- it simply doesn't acknowledge that they are any longer marks of nobility). Just as the German Empire and Kingdom of Italy recognized the continued existence of dynastic and noble titles created by predecessor monarchies (Germany accorded them precedence, whereas Italy didn't), the republics that succeeded those monarchies declined to do so -- but did not attempt to abolish what they never created. FactStraight (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read what Blur4760 has argued above: "titles of nobility in Germany are not illegal, they simply do not exist". When they do not exist in Germany, they cannot exist in the English speaking world either. So it is quite wrong here on Wikipedia to use a title that in fact does not exist. Skuipers (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Article 109 of the Weimar Constitution does NOT say that titles do not exist, nor that they are illegal. It says, "Noble titles form part of the name only; noble titles may not be granted any more." The Weimar Constitution lost all legal force in 1945. The present German constitution says absolutely nothing about noble titles. In Germany Franz is commonly (even by the President and the Chancellor) addressed by his noble titles. In English-language works he is consistently called "the Duke of Bavaria" or "Duke Franz of Bavaria" or some variant thereof. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right with exception of one thing: The mentioned sentence of Article 109 is the precise one sentence of the Weimar Constitution (other than those mentioned in Art. 140 Basic Law) which does, officially mentioned in the "Fundstellennachweis" etc. pp., have legal force. (The Weimar Constitution lost none of its force in 1945, and what wasn't explicitly dealt with in the Basic Law remained in force even in 1949 with the rank of non-constitutional law, and was later, I believe, rather officially abrogated.) That being said, this paragraph only says what it says, and nothing more. --93.134.232.148 (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Some confusion seems to have been created by that (I think) Prussia in the 1920s enacted a law that chief-of-the-house positions entered into are not registered officially. Needless to say that the factual importance of this law there also goes no millimeter beyond its literal application, and society (as distinct from the State) uses its legal right to ignore it. (Which in turn is ignored on the German WP - many contributors seem to believe that what is not in law is not in the world. After all, a nation has to keep up with its stereotypes. :-) However, society on her own has decided not to use Emperor or King, which is reserved for incumbent monarchs.) But this is a parenthesis; the mentioned law has no (not even, you might say) legal force in Bavaria, and HRH the Duke seems to have walked into a registration office and said he was now the Duke, and the registration office seems to have acted accordingly, as also the German wikipedia has it in the meantime. --93.134.232.148 (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Parents marriage

Can anyone clarify when his parents marriage was recognised as dynastic, Les Maisons Impériales et Royales d'Europe says 18 May 1949, Les maisons royales et souveraines d'Europe says 1945. - dwc lr (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing happened in 1945; the war was just ending. May 18, 1949 was the eightieth birthday of Franz's grandfather Rupprecht; it is on this occasion that Franz appeared on the balcony at Schloss Nymphenburg. Noel S McFerran (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Crown Prince Ruprecht declared the marriage of his son Albrecht to be dynastic on 18 May 1949. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Heir of Navarre ?

Hello, can anyone tell me if I am right if I suggest that he could theoretically claim the trone of Navarre and if so why does this claim not appear ? I sincerely do not know if I am right, however, what I know is that, unlike the French trone, the trone of Navarre was inherited by women. King Henry III of Navarre (Henri IV of France) received it from his mother Jonana II de Labrit (French "Jeanne d'Albret", Queen of Navarre). In 1620 Navarre (the title only, since the main part of the territory was taken by Aragon's army and then ocupied by Spain untill today) was integrated within the French Kingdom. However this does not change the rule that women inherit and rule in the Navarre Kingdom.

The first borns within the Bourbon-Navarre house after Henry IV are Louis XIII, Louis XIV and Louis XV ; however, Louis XV first born child was Princess Louise-Élisabeth of France and the Duke of Bavaria is her first born descendent. Is that right ?

If you happen to have the answer, please respond to my occitan page.

oc:Utilizaire:Lembeye

No. Navarre operated by male-preference primogeniture, so that a daughter would only inherit if she had no brothers. See List of Navarrese monarchs, which suggests the current heir is Princess Alicia of Bourbon-Parma. Choess (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Francis II ?

Why should he be styled Francis II if he were King of Great Britain, Ireland & France ?

There has never been a Francis I in Great Britain & Ireland, hence he could be Francis I.

And there has been a Francis II in France already, so if he were King of France he would be Francis III. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.108.198.80 (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There WAS a de jure King Francis I, from 1840 to 1875! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.209 (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

To put that less obscurely: if Franz of Bavaria were king of England etc, he'd be "II" because this other Francis preceded him as Jacobite heir. —Tamfang (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Obscurely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.209 (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

How about "obliquely"? —Tamfang (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Stuart claim

Hopefully someone can find some reliable sources. This was a link [4] but not used as a source, but see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 82#Jacobite publications and organisations. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with this one: [5] Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Or what's wrong with the Telegraph article which is already listed in the Bibliography: "Without the Act, Franz Herzog von Bayern, the current Duke of Bavaria, would be the rightful heir to the British Crown under the Stuart line." Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Then add them as inline citations. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Question: LGBT Royalty ?

One of the links at the end of the article is LGBT Royaly, and he is in the lst of LGBT Royalty here, but a word search found nothing about it in the article. Shouldn't ther be some mention at least, or a citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.238.203 (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In case of royalty (and some other cases), people seem to remember their traditional rumours otherwise long abandoned. There certainly used to be a tradition to rumour that a man was "you-know-what" when he was no priest and just did not and did not seem to get married. (The same was not said about women, who only got the rather disparaging title of "old maid".) The Duke is not often called homosexual, and if he is sometimes, that would not have any basis in substantial fact other than that, yes, he is not married. And no, that should not be mentioned nor should he be so listed.--217.251.70.221 (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"Sunday, June 13, 2021. New Pictures of Duke Franz of Bavaria. Dr. Thomas Greinwald and Duke Franz of Bavaria with their dachshund. Photo credit: Erwin Olaf. We are happy to share two pictures of Duke Franz of Bavaria, Head of the Royal House. In the first photograph, Duke Franz is shown with his longtime partner Dr. Thomas Greinwald and their daschund."[6] Better source needed though. cagliost (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

That’s not a source that can be used at all per WP:BLOG. DeCausa (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe that there is not source to believe he is gay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:106E:C:D74F:14A9:4E34:C2B7:654A (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's say it's an open secret... Here a picture of Franz, his partner Thomas Greinwald and his nephew (and dynastic heir) Prince Ludwig at the wedding of Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia: [7] Equord (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Serious problems with this article and use of non-existent titles

I don't think it is accurate or neutral to refer to this person as "Franz, Duke of Bavaria". The German WP calls him "Franz von Bayern", this article should be called "Franz of Bavaria'. He is not a Duke. Definitely there should not be that comma in the title of this article "Franz, Duke of Bavaria", if his name is used that way it should be "Franz Duke of Bavaria", peoples' names don't have commas in them but I think he should not be called a "Duke" at all, it is misleading, not everyone is going to read the whole article and realise that it is not a title but the way members of old aristocratic families are allowed to legally change their names. And the section "Titles and styles" should be deleted, he does not have any titles or styles any more than your dentist or the cleaning lady, they were all abolished, everyone would have some abolished title if we went back far enough. Look at the German article, it does not list his "styles and titles", in fact it says "Der Titel „Herzog von Bayern, Franken und in Schwaben, Pfalzgraf bei Rhein“[5] wird noch traditionell verwendet, entspricht jedoch nicht dem amtlichen Namen. Das dem Namen vorangestellte Prädikat „Königliche Hoheit (K.H.)“ bzw. „Seine Königliche Hoheit (S.K.H.)“ wird ebenfalls noch im gesellschaftlichen Umfeld verwendet, ist jedoch ebenso eine reine Höflichkeitsform ohne rechtliche Relevanz" which more or less means "people call him "royal highness" to his face just to be nice but it has no meaning". Also the German article does not have a box with "Bavarian Royal Family", there is not a Bavarian Royal Family and has not been one for nearly a hundred years. All of this is just snobs' fantasy, why in the world is the English WP perpetuating an idea that there are still Germans with royal titles more than the German WP? It would be in line with WP policy if I were to be bold, move the article to "Franz of Bavaria", delete all that piffle about living German people who are royal highnesses, but for right now I will just tag the article and wait a few days to see if there are any comments.Smeat75 (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree we should do that. Even though David Bagration of Mukhrani used royal titles in the article until I removed them, it makes it clear that he is a pretender and doesn't use his title as the article title. Dougweller (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Franz, Duke of Bavaria → Franz of Bavaria – This person is not a Duke although the page name makes it look like he is. "Duke of Bavaria" is just a translation of his last name. The German WP calls him Franz von Bayern, a translation of which would be a more neutral title. Smeat75 (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Pretenders are generally known socially by some lesser title, e.g., the pretended King of Francis is Henri d'Orléans, Count of Paris, and here the pretended King of Bavaria is styled "Duke of Bavaria". While nobility is not recognized under the laws of their respective countries, that doesn't affect the general use of these titles to name them. (See also our use of Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom: we, and the world in general, use them to refer to their holders, even though those people are, legally speaking, commoners.) Choess (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
• Rename, as nominator - For the benefit of anyone coming to this discussion who may not be versed in such arcane topics, when German royal titles were abolished in 1919 the holders were allowed legally to change their names to Max Princeofsomewhereonantoher, but it has no legal status as a title. This person is not a Duke and I think it is very misleading.Smeat75 (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. What the nominator (or any of us) thinks and believes is completely irrelevant for as long as there are sources calling him Duke of Bavaria - and there obviously are such sources. National laws are not above basic Wikipedia principles, such as verifiability and common usage - for the same reason, we are able to include criticism of Kim Jong-un despite that being illegal (to say the least) in North Korea. Surtsicna (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose see - [8], he's well known in art world circles...Modernist (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, seems like the most common name is Franz, Duke of Bavaria. Keep it how it is. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's his common title, no matter what his legal status is in Germany. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per WP:COMMONNAME, it is the name they are commonly known by rather than their "official" name which is used for the article name. Thus, regardless of the fact Germany does not officially recognise royal and noble titles, as individuals are still commonly known by those titles (even by individuals in Germany, as well as officially and unofficially by the rest of the world), it is the name that used. Using the name he is most commonly referred to, and the name he uses himself, is in no way "non-neutral".--Rushton2010 (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Bavarian Royal Family" infobox with list of false titles

The tags I put on this article because of the name have been restored by an admin but I also strongly dispute that infobox labelled "Bavarian royal family" (there is no such thing) with a list of phoney royal and serene and imperial highnesses (all those titles were abolished in 1919). I changed the template to "House of Wittelsbach" and took out all the false honorific prefixes, it was reverted, I tagged the template itself, the tag was taken out because it "makes a mess" and I was being disruptive. So I am going to tag every article that infobox with its list of what seem to me falsehoods appears in as disputed for accuracy and neutrality.Smeat75 (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you improving the encyclopedia, or just making a point? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course there's such a thing as the Bavarian royal family. Just because a country decides to become a republic does not mean the royal family ceases to exist. That's revisionism. Neither are the titles "phoney" or "false" just because the republic decided to abolish them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No, there is a House of Wittelsbach but the living members of it are not royal therefore there is no "Bavarian royal family". And when the titles were abolished that means they do not exist anymore, you could call your cat "His Imperial and Royal Majesty the Duke of Saxe-whatever" but it wouldn't mean anything and neither does it in those cases, it is misleading and false information, they have no titles, and they are not royal.Smeat75 (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

RE:point- the guideline says " As a rule, someone engaging in "POINTy" behavior is making edits which s/he does not really agree with, for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition" which does not apply here as I certainly do agree with the edits I am making.Smeat75 (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Not legally existing any more is not the same thing as not existing any more. The titles clearly do exist and clearly are used and the Wittelsbachs clearly are still regarded as a royal family by many. They didn't cease to be royal because of a government decree, any more than the history of Russia changed because the Communist government produced revisionist textbooks. It is Wikipedia's job to report the truth, not the truth as the German government (or any other government) has decreed it to be. These are not people randomly giving themselves spurious, made-up titles; these are a family continuing to use the titles they have always used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

One thing I would ask about is the use of the HRH, etc., honorifics. Are these really used socially, even today? If not, I'd prefer to see them removed from the box. Choess (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It's like everything -it depends on the occasion. Official engagements do, the media tend to. On an one to one level, I guess it comes down to personal choice. The president of the Duke's administration, Baron Bechtolsheim, referred to him in the British media as "His Royal Majesty", rather than HRH, but that appears to me to be more of bad translation/grammar by someone who's not a native English speaker, than anything else.--Rushton2010 (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Necrothesp says above "Not legally existing any more is not the same thing as not existing any more. The titles clearly do exist" - Noble Privilege by M L Bush, Manchester University Press, 1983 [9] "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". These kinds of discussions quickly devolve into mind-boggling arcane quibbling about minutiae, really it is very simple, here is a WP:RS from a university press, those titles were abolished, they were eliminated.That author in that book from a university press does not make any distinction between "legally" existing and some other kind of existing, the titles exist in the fantasies of various pretenders and people or entities which for whatever reason play along with that pretense, that's all there is to it.Necrothesp also says "It is Wikipedia's job to report the truth, not the truth as the German government (or any other government) has decreed it to be" - Encyclopedia of Politics, Volume 2 "In Germany, titles of royalty existed from early Medieval times until they were abolished when the region became a republic in 1918. After 1918, members of the former nobility were permitted to use titles only as part of a name." It is WP's job not to report the truth but to summarise what WP:RS reliable sources say. Here's another one: [10] from Royals and the Reich: The Princes von Hessen in Nazi Germany by Jonathan Petropoulos,Professor of European History at Claremont McKenna College: "aristocratic titles were abolished during the Weimar Republic after the fall of the monarchy. As of 1919 aristocratic titles were merged into the individual's name. Therefore the Prince of Bavaria or the Prince of Baden actually was not a title but a name....(a member of an ex-royal family noted)'actually most people today confuse the name with a title. They also use expressions like "Royal Highness","Highness" and "Serene Highness" (Durchlaucht) and forget that we live in a republic.'" It doesn't matter if individuals or publications are "confused" enough to use phony honorifics, WP has no business adding to the confusion. Those honorifics in that box are out and out false, none of those people are any kind of "Highness", I have referenced three reliable sources that say plainly that all that was abolished nearly a hundred years ago, I could find three hundred more. I put accuracy and neutrality disputed tags on this article, they were removed, an admin put them back on, they have been taken off again, I am putting them back. I strongly, vehemently dispute that box falsely informing WP readers that there is such a thing as a current Bavarian royal family composed of a number of varieties of "Highnesses".Smeat75 (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You really have no intention of grasping what WP:Common name means. Surtsicna (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything on that page about use of honorifics on abolished royal titles. Have you read WP:RS? How about WP:V? What could be plainer than the three reliable sources I cited saying that these titles were abolished? I object to those tags being removed and just being told "your sources don't matter and neither does anything you say, there is no dispute".Smeat75 (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This man is referred to as Duke Franz in reliable English language sources. Queen Latifah and Emperor Norton are known as such in reliable English language sources. It doesn't matter that you don't consider Franz to be a duke, or that nobody considers Queen Latifah and Emperor Norton a queen and an emperor. The only thing that matters is that they are referred to as such in reliable English language sources. That is what WP:UCN, WP:RS and WP:V say. Citing an obscure 100-year-old national law and interpreting it as a reason to invent a new name for this man is the worst form of original research: synthesis. Surtsicna (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

An obscure law? It is far from that. And if I saw Emperor Norton being referred to on WP as "His Imperial and Royal Majesty" or Queen Latifah as "HM" I would certainly dispute that. My personal opinion does not matter, Franz is not a duke, according to the above three reliable sources out of hundreds I could cite, those titles were all abolished.Smeat75 (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

And Queen Latifah is not a queen. If people nevertheless referred to her as "Her Majesty", Wikipedia would have mentioned that. It's that simple. Surtsicna (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"Imperial Majesty" is in the first line of the lead in Emperor Norton. Choess (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"the self-proclaimed Imperial Majesty", it says, which is highly unlikely to confuse anyone, going on to point out that "some considered him insane, or eccentric". I was confused myself over this issue for years, I knew a little about royalty and that those "HRH" abbreviations were the mark of royalty, when I saw them in from of German titles I thought it meant those people really had actual titles, it is only when I researched it that I found out that it is a mere gesture of courtesy, WP articles should not add to this confusion (noted above in one of the sources I cited).Smeat75 (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is a mere gesture of courtesy! All forms of address are mere gestures of courtesy. Do you really think that anyone is legally entitled to be known as Mr/Ms/Miss/Mrs? Do you really think that the Bishop of Rome has a legal right to be addressed as "Your Holliness"? Of course not. You are making a problem out of nothing. It is not Wikipedia's job to tilt at windmills. Surtsicna (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure it is right to have these general discussions on article pages which are meant to be about suggestions for improvement to the article. I have invited you twice to discuss this on my talk page, it seems you don't want to, so I will respond here at least for now. The Duke and Duchess of Windsor fought from the time they married until his death to have her designated "HRH" to show that she had royal status, his brother the King refused. Diana, Princess of Wales had her "HRH" revoked on her divorce, this caused quite a scandal and is still remembered with some bitterness by those who admired her. In fact it is reading about the fight of the Duke of Windsor to have his wife made "HRH" that made me think that when I saw these German "royals" with that "style" it meant that they really had royal titles. They should not have those honorific abbreviations applied to them on WP, it is inaccurate and misleading.Smeat75 (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

They should because people use those honorifics to refer to them. That is completely accurate. People call them Highnesses, and we report that. As simple as that. When King George VI decreed that the Duchess of Windsor should not be known as a Royal Highness, no source referred to her as such. That is obviously different than the situation we are discussing, as these people are styled as royals by sources. Mind you, George's decree was not a law of any kind. Nobody is legally entitled to any style, as I have already explained. Anyway, I fail to see how your talk page is a more appropriate place than this talk page - you are not a prince of any kind, are you? Surtsicna (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

From the website of the Museum of Modern Art see this list of Trustees and honorary trustees which includes HRH Duke Franz of Bavaria:OFFICERS & BOARD OF TRUSTEES...Modernist (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

But you see, the fact that some people call him that doesn't give it any meaning, they are just doing that to be "polite", WP has no reason to use courtly honorifics in order to be nice to this man,it is misleading. In the case of British people when they are called "HRH" it means they are royal, here it does not, that is why it is confusing.Smeat75 (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course it has a meaning. All honorifics are used out of politeness; that is why they are called honorifics. WP should not refer to anyone as a Highness, regardless of that person's constitutional status. And yes, in this case, referring to Franz as "His Royal Highness" does mean that he is royal, and he is as royal as any other royal person is - and that can be interpreted in many ways. What's important is that he is considered royal, and that he is routinely styled as a Royal Highness. Once again - you are tilting at windmills. Styles are not regulated by law. Nobody is legally entitled to be known as Mr/Ms/Mrs/Miss or Holliness/Highness/Majesty/Eminence/Excellency. Those are all gestures of politeness people choose to use or not to use. People choose to refer to Franz as a Royal Highness, and we report that. We do not do that ourselves, but we do report that people do it. Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that this has been clarified today and now says "The prefix "His Royal Highness" is used, but is a gesture of politeness and has no legal status in Germany. Under German law royal titles are not recognised legally, but can be used as a part of a surname." Very very good, hearty thanks to whoever did that, if such a clarification could be made on every such article I would have no complaints about the matter, but you cannot put that into those navboxes, that is why the honorific abbreviations need to be removed from them.Smeat75 (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It is utterly redundant. No style has a legal status anywhere. Surtsicna (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, our opinions of the status of the styles are irrelevant. If the Queen of England came into my home, I'd call her Mrs. Mountbatten. But I'm not going to suggest that Wikipedia bend to my eccentricities. WP:COMMONNAME is the policy, like it or not. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Look, the editors of this page obviously know a very great deal about royalty, far more than most people. When Charles Prince of Wales is called "HRH" it means he has an official title. When this man is called "HRH" it means something different. That is why it is confusing, I am grateful to Rushton for clearing it up,and have thanked him or her for it.Smeat75 (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

When Charles is called "HRH", it's because an ancestor of his said so and people obliged. When Franz is called "HRH", it's because an ancestor of his said so and people obliged. Neither of the two is "legally" entitled to be known as a Royal Highness, yet both are styled as such. There is nothing confusing about that. You appear to be intentionally ignoring explanations provided to you by several users, especially those pointing out that there is nothing (il)legal about royal styles or any other forms of address. Surtsicna (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the point of continuing this discussion about this matter here, as far as I am concerned the issue of the use of "HRH" in the body of this particular article has now been resolved by the edits of Rushton, for which I am grateful.Smeat75 (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm amused by the notion that royal titles, assumed by a political act, cannot be removed by a political act. —Tamfang (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Only that they weren't. It is true that the Republic of Austria considers it an offense against it self to claim them (not use them on other people, hence, reportedly, invitation cards like "I, NN. Habsburg-Lothringen, am glad to invite to the marriage of my son, HIH NN. Archduke of Austria"), but the Free-State of Bavaria does not.--2001:A61:20AD:501:BC0A:8993:921C:6DEB (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Besides, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Munich once began a speech in the Parliament of the Freestate of Bavaria (where he had been invited as guest orator or so) with the words "Your Royal Highness", because apparently the Duke or some other prince were present in the gallery. And noone was put into prison, or had to pay a fine, whatever republicanists would have wished for.--2001:A61:260C:C01:9440:F1B4:87B6:67E (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Party guests

The section on Duke Franz' birthday party included the mention of the Minister-President of Bavaria, Horst Seehofer, "(formerly President of the German Bundesrat)". Aside from the fact that this is but a side note, I do not think it is relevant that Seehofer was President of the German Bundesrat. As the Bundesrat consists of the governments of the Federal States, Seehofer held the presidency of the chamber ex officio as Minister-President of Bavaria. While the office is officially elected, there is an agreement that the heads of Federal States succeed each other in the office according to their state's rank in inhabitants. His holding the office as such is not a personal achievement but a product of it being Bavaria's turn to hold the office and he happening to be the Minister-President at the time. As the text of the article notes Seehofer "formerly" held the office, it is doubly irrelevant for the article at issue, and I'm thus eliminating the remark. --95.90.54.245 (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

heir-general

The current senior co-heir-general of King James II ...

Can one be heir-general to a non-ancestor? Unfortunately Heir-general redirects to an article that does not use the term, let alone define it. This sentence previously named Charles I (an ancestor) rather than James II.

Is the prefix co– there because in English common law there is no seniority between sisters? That principle has never been applied to the throne (though it seems 1952 was the first time it could be), nor to Scottish peerages. —Tamfang (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this article may begin to answer your question (Heirs of the body). Deusveritasest (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you can be the heir or heir-general to someone from which you do not decend. the prefix "co-" does not belong here and has been removed. King of Nothing (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary: removed co from co-heir general of James II; is not possible for their to be a co-heir general in this situation. For the reason I mentioned above, or otherwise? —Tamfang (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

What's an Othonist?

There's no other references to Othonists on Wikipedia. At the very least a redlink should be provided for this word.

1.127.106.104 (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it has something to do with Otto of Greece, who's Greek name is Othon. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Titile

NOT a criticism, just a thought... and not specifically directed at this article except that it's what I happened to be reading today... it seems inappropriate to me for an encyclopedia to list a person under a title of nobility connected to a realm that ceased to exist fifteen years before he was born, or at least to do so in a way that looks as if the individual is the current holder of a legitimate office. I am prejudiced in that I find the concept of hereditary nobility itself to be offensive. But while there is indeed an extant and nearly-universally recognized political entity that recognizes Henry Charles Albert David as "the Duke of Sussex," Franz's title is largely a thing of fantasy, little more grounded in current reality than Richard Booth's claim to be "King of Hay". PurpleChez (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but there are a few things we should keep in mind. Firstly, the Free State of Bavaria does recognize Franz as Herzog von Bayern. Secondly, we are under no obligation to use a legal name. Things of fantasy are perfectly fine and very common. We have Queen Latifah, Emperor Norton, etc. We call people whatever they are called in reliable sources. It is not up to us to ponder whether that common name is legally recognized or reasonable. Surtsicna (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

"I understand what you are saying" You do? Then please explain, how is the fact that hereditary nobility continues to exist "offensive"? And how does I don't like it have any effect on article content? Dimadick (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It is really not so difficult to grasp that a person may be offended by the idea that some people are "noble" (i.e. better than others) due to their descent. PurpleChez only mentioned that as a disclaimer and he certainly did not base his comment on a dislike of nobility. He was questioning the accuracy of the content. That is what we are here to do, not to debate how the survival of hereditary nobility into the 21st century might be offensive. Surtsicna (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Surtsicna! I merely raised the question, and your response was both constructive and friendly. Too bad not everyone operates that way.... PurpleChez (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Place of his birth

Shouldn’t it be said in his info box that he was born in Munich, Nazi Germany? Jimmyy68 (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's very relevant. MPS1992 (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I was going to agree and say that we don’t label birth countries based on the then prevailing constitutional arrangements (eg French Third Republic, instead of ‘France’). But having checked out other articles it seems we do. The Germans born during the Nazi era that I checked (e.g. Gerhard Schroder) are described in their Infoboxes as born in Nazi Germany and Francois Mitterand is described as being born in the Third Republic. Seems odd to me, but that does seem to be the practice. DeCausa (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

"Direct descendant"

"Franz is a direct descendant of the House of Stuart." This is a meaningless expression. Yes he is a descendant of the House of Stuart, but then so are millions of other people, including nearly all the royal families of Europe. Does it mean he is descended from a Stuart monarch in the direct male line? No, he isn't. Does it mean he has the best hereditary claim to the Stuart succession? No, he doesn't (Queen Elizabeth, as 10-times great-granddaughter of James I, has a better claim). The word "direct" should be deleted. Constant Pedant (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, he’s either a descendant or not. “Best hereditary claim”? The Queen’s claim is “best” because the line of succession was altered by Statute in 1701. Not because of having a closer relationship to James I. Absent the statutory change, Franz would be ahead of the Queen purely in terms of primogeniture. DeCausa (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Herzog von Bayern

The lede is a perfectly reasonable attempt at a difficult problem, but we are now stating as a fact his surname is ‘Herzog von Bayern’, which is what people are concerned about in terms of saying someone has a title. Presumably he was born with the last name ‘Königlicher Prinz von Bayern’ (which was the title during the monarchy), or maybe just ‘Prinz von Bayern’. Can we verify that he changed his last name, and it’s Herzog von Bayern now. Or does he use Herzog von Bayern as a title and is recognised as such? - dwc lr (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, It's reasonable apart from the bit about the article title asserting a nonexistent title, yes. Guy (help!) 21:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Line of Succession

Franz is heir to the throne of Bavaria and also the Jacobite heir to the throne of England. The line of succession to the throne of Bavaria has Prince Max then Prince Luitpold, as the article notes. But the Jacobite line of succession to the throne of England is different. It's Prince Max, then his daughter Princess Sophie. The article should say that, but it doesn't. I changed it (as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Franz,_Duke_of_Bavaria&oldid=1001036482 ), but someone reverted it. - 2603:9000:E408:4800:A1D0:6CA4:8578:AD17 (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I reverted it. As explained, it gives too much prominence to something that is immaterial. It amounts to trivia. (It was also unsourced.)WP:UNDUE. DeCausa (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If you click here you'll be taken to a Wikipedia article about a TV show that ran for 1 season on basic cable 20 years ago. That's the sort of thing that is worthy of a 34,740 byte article all to itself. I think we can spare one sentence for a topic that caused four wars. - 2603:9000:E408:4800:B9C2:9FF3:1916:964 (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

We have an article about the Jacobite Succession. It’s covered there perfectly adequately. This article notes the Stuart connection. Who succeeds Franz in a theoretical ‘succession’ that now has no significance, no legal basis and which Franz has explicitly said is irrelevant to him is...irrelevant to him, aka trivia. DeCausa (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

So you acknowledge that it is worth noting on Wikipedia? That's good.

The other article is good. But we should also note it here, for people who read this article, but not the other one. Or at least, remove this article's false implication that Luitpold is Max's heir for the Jacobite succession. - 2603:9000:E408:4800:A442:7FE8:60EE:3D91 (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you (I wrote almost all of the current version of that article). That article is linked to in this article. That’s how Wikipedia works. If anyone wants to know more about it they can click through to that article. The Jacobite succession after Franz is material to the Jacobite Succession article because it is central to the point of that article. However, it is not central or even of any importance to an article about Franz. It is WP:UNDUE to give that sort of prominence in this article to something that has no bearing or relevance to the life of the subject of this article. DeCausa (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)