Talk:Rothschild family/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Victor Rothschild misconception

Removed this sentence - "Lord Victor Rothschild was against granting asylum or even help to Jewish refugees during the Holocaust.(ref name="independent.co.uk"/ [1]>) " Author of article cited seems to have grasped wrong end of story. VR organised the Jewish refugee fund, and gave speech in 1938 in which he said "the slow murder of 600,000 people is an act which has rarely happened in history. It is an act that you can prevent." --Mervyn (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source to support that you should put the information you removed back because it is cited to a reliable source. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Or you could flag it as Sean.hoyland - talk 13:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That sentence can't stand as is, claiming that VR opposed helping refugees. There is a more complicated issue around VR's doubts about large scale settlement of refugees in Palestine (consistent with Brit policy of the time). See his biog "Elusive Rothschild" pp59-60. --Mervyn (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

So would you be willing to add material from "Elusive Rothschild" ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually there isn't anything about this in his wiki article so it doesn't really make sense to have it here and not there. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

changed section name & quoted from source

Changed the Section title name from Jewish identity and positions on Zionism, " to "Jewish Homeland" -- Here is the sentence in full

"According to The Independent, the family was of different opinions and concerns on "the question of the dream of the Jewish homeland" some supporting, and others opposing on fears that "it would encourage anti-Semites to question the existing national identities of assimilated Jews" around the world. [17]

It originally read: "Some Rothschilds were supporters of the State of Israel, although other members of the family opposed the creation of the state (17). That was just plain wrong based on the source, which never mentions "Israel." My version more clearly speaks to what the source says and provides more information regarding what the argument was all about.

My point above all along has been that this is not about "Israel" and the idea of Zionism has changed over the years so it is inappropriate to use it over the broad sweep of Rothschilds. The Independent avoided this trap by using the concept of "Jewish Homeland" which is more accurate over time. Before it was modern-day Israel, it was the idea of the Jewish Homeland, and it still is that today. So this is appropriate and should satisfy a lot of the people who have been driven away from this article over this issue. I think this is an excellent compromise and if you don't please put your reasons here rather than edit war this one. Thanks. Stellarkid (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I agree with others above that this section is inappropriate and POV in this article and should be removed entirely. But since "the opposition " to this has worn out the others, at the very least say what the article reflects. Please stop edit warring and support your position here, as there is NO CONSENSUS for it as it stands. Stellarkid (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please knock it off Stellarkid. The section was discussed to death and for you to come in and destroy all that with erroneous arguments is not editing in good faith. Vexorg (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree, Jewish Homeland is better and provides a more suitable framing of the subject matter. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Bless you, Sean.  ;) Stellarkid (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree and I am reverting. We spent a lot of time getting consensus on this. Vexorg (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

do not agree=no consensus. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A steaming pile

What a joke this "Article" is. I have removed a number of items of "information" that are standard canards passed around and around in the circles of the crazy tinfoil-hatters for decades. Of course, very soon some of them, with unlimited time on their hands, will be dropping in to scream about "removal of sourced information" and playing the shitty Wikipedia game of fantasy "lawyering" (which they probably picked up from their cellmates while they were in the big house serving time for refusing to pay income tax) to promote their crazy notions. Fuck Wikipedia, fuck the drooling knuckledraggers laughably calling themselves "editors".--84.176.32.11 (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(chuckling) - This has to be one of the best rants I've seen yet. NickCT (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand Wikipedia does have an article about tin foil hats. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What do people have against tin foil hats anyway? I mean really, they're cheap, bold, flattering, and they keep Karl Rove out of my head. NickCT (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Their head, obviously. It's a hat. Oh I see what you mean now. Nevermind. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Family Wealth

Why can't a section be included regarding the Rothschild family wealth, which has been estimated by various authors who researched the subject as being between $1 trillion and 500 trillion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenapproach09 (talk • contribs) 10:40, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

If the figures you quoted are diminished about 10,000 times we can have a section for the same.117.194.229.15 (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Major edits need to be made if this article is to have a neutral pov. This reads like a PR release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.179.119 (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There are some major inaccuracies in this article - To begin with, how can Amschel Mayor be both the founder of the Rothschild family, having 5 sons, and also BE one of those 5 sons! WHFM

Likewise, how could John Adams be both the 2nd President of the United States and also be the 6th, his own son?! We're through the looking glass, folks! 76.197.135.117 (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Have started to expand this article and put neutral pov. The earlier links were inappropriate. Requires a lot more work, and careful treatment of how the family members are distinguished and referenced. mervyn 09:37, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

David Icke

Mary Ann Van Hoof supposedly receiving visions from the Virgin Mary telling her that the Rothschilds are "mongrel yids (Jews)" bent on imposing world domination through international banking and the work of their "satanic secret society."[1] She also claims that the Rothschilds and other Jews have subverted the Roman Catholic Church. [2] The British author David Icke has written extensively on this theme.

The above seems to suggest that David Icke also believes in a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. I have read many of Mr Icke's books and have never found any thing either verbatim or pointing towards him being anti Jewish. He does mention the Rothschilds and International banking as a part of the evil and war machine, but no where in his books or films does he say it is because that they are Jewish or any other creed or race.

I suggest that this obvious slander either be removed or formatted differently Orasis 23:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A simple Google of the words -David Icke Anti Semite- brings a plethora of reliable sources criticising Mr Icke for his anti-semitic views. Many critics feel that the use of the word 'reptile' or 'lizard' in Mr Ickes works is a disguise for the word 'Jew'. Mr Icke has connections to Canadian anti-semitic organisations. Mr Icke, in his book "...and the Truth Will Set you Free", repeatedly endorses The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and asserts its fundamental correctness ('The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' was an anti-semitic hoax, which purports to describe a Jewish plot to achieve world domination). Malbolge 18:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Malbolge 18:03 GMT, 26 February 2007.

How about trying to actually inform yourself, rather than Googling up a simple search and reading whatever garbage bubbles up. His books are available through the libraries. Believe me, your reliable sources aren't so reliable. And it would seem that their claims rely solely on general ignorance regarding Mr. Icke's work and a willingness to condemn a man without a proper investigation into what he has to say for himself. It begs the question: Why are all these folks so bent on damaging his credibility? And why are there so many apparently educated people willing to jump on the wagon with them when they literally know Jack about the issue at hand? 121.44.194.104 19:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Why are all these folks so bent on damaging his credibility?" Ickes HAS no credibility outside the paranoid right wing. He never offers verifiable, objective evidence of his claims, not ever, citing only other paranoid right-wingers. And ad hominem attacks on his critics on his behalf only demonstrates your own lack of real ammunition in the debate.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, by the way -- in case you still labor under a misapprehension of their validity -- were demonstrated quite thoroughly several decades ago to have been invented out of whole cloth by Czar Nicholas II's secret police (actually, they subcontracted it out to a second-rate novelist) as a tool to further stir up antisemitism among the Russian Orthodox establishment. The Protocols are still a favorite source for slander among American evangelicals, however (and I can supply about 50 citations to demonstrate that . . .). --Michael K. Smith 17:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This sourced quote from David Icke pretty much ends any debate on the matter: "At the heart of Icke's theories is the view that the world is ruled by a secret group called the "Global Elite" or "Illuminati," which he has linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic hoax.[3][4] In 1999, he published The Biggest Secret, in which he wrote that the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie. [3][5]" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nadav1 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC). nadav 18:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How does that end any debate in the matter? That quote says that he thinks QE2 and W are reptilian humanoids; that doesn't establish whether he's anti-Semitic or not. Since none of the people mentioned in the above list are even Jewish, it shows that he doesn't even necessarily ascribe this hoax, if he does believe in it, to Jewish people! So, how is that somehow implying that he's anti-Semitic? That is a serious charge and, while the passage in question has been reworded, it should not be thrown around on talk pages since this is a living person.--Gloriamarie 15:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories aside, you don't have to wear a tin-foil hat in order to recognize fascism for what it is. Anyone involved with International Investment Banking Restructuring, negotiating corporate mergences and further concentrating power in the corporate hierarchy, is a fascist in every sense of the word. May I suggest as a revision to the article that, as controversy (given the contentious nature of the word fascism), the Rothschilds' familial role in Global Society is one concerned with fascist motivations.

It should also be criticized that by placing any controversial arguments in a category of "conspiracy theory" there arises an issue of semantics and logical fallacy because of a prominent tendency to associate the concept with negative, discrediting connotation. <Simon,UWO>

I'm absolutely certain that you have no idea what the word fascist even means. The reason that it is a contentious term (apart from the historical societies that are defined as being fascist) is that uneducated leftists simply use it to describe people they don't like. I myself am a leftist and the odd and overly cliche usage of the word fascist annoys me to no end. People use it without having any idea what it means, and the usage becomes so broad and vague that it stops meaning anything. The fact that you actualy argue that "anyone involved with International Investment Banking Restructuring, negotiating corporate mergences and further concentrating power in the corporate hierarchy, is a fascist in every sense of the word" merely proves my point. Your argument lacks anything that even resembles an intelligent and coherent point. Part of the problematic nature of the term is the fact that Fascism was a very ill defined political ideology. Mussolini's co-written manifesto not only radically contradicts itself (at one point he called religion a mental illness and then he later called fascism a religion, which I mention as a particularly amusing example) and it fails to form any true and distinct ideological definition. There are vast differences between the three historical fascist regimes (Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, and Franco's Spain), and thus the term becomes even more confusing. There are tendencies, trends and commonalities between the three entities, of course, but there simply isn't anything that emerges as a true fixed ideology. Mussolini, the first Fascist leader and one of the originators of the political movement, defined his beliefs only in terms of what he was opposed to, rather than giving a list of tenants, platforms, and aims. Fascism was defined as being anti-Communism and anti-democracy, but there was little given in the way of what it was exactly. Some of the better definitions that I have gained from various European history classes touch upon its populist nature, its reliance on pageantry, its focus on complete political, economic and cultural control and a strong militaristic principles as being the back bone of society. Fascism has never had anything to do with a so-called 'global society.' In fact one of the common denominators between the Fascist regimes was that they each pronounced extreme nationalism, which is diamemtrically oposed to globalization. What exactly do you mean by 'fascist motivations?' Your terminology makes no sense. And no, International Investment Banking Restructuring and the concentration of corporate power through merges, acquisitions and overall concentration of power has absolutely nothing to do with fascism inherently, in fact no actual fascist movement has ever concerned itself with any of that as a major goal. Sure those governments sought to make money, but all governments seek to maintain their existence. In the case of fascist governments economic success was about perserving a facade of social improvement to maintain its populist appeal and as a means of funding their militaries, which as I said before was of extreme importance. I realize that I have rambled for some time now, but you managed to stumble upon a pet pieve of mine. You have no idea what fascist means and anyone who calls the Rothschild fascist or having fascist motivations has no idea what they are talking about. It absolutely doesn't deserve to be in the article, as it is not an argument that is even worth any amount of attention or consideration. Just because fascism was about social, cultural, political and economic control does not mean corporations are fascist for simply wanting to perpetuate their existence through market dominance. And yes my friend, you don't need a tin-foil hat to see as you do, you just need logic and knowledge that is as flimsy and discardable as tin foil. And you are also right that the term conspiracy theory often taints what is being labled. That is simply because of the fact that, although conspiracies exist, conspiracy theorists often make outlandish and peculiar arguments based on little to no actual quantifiable evidence and they take such enormious and dubious leaps from the evidence they do have that the arguments become absurd. Conspiracy theorists are their own downfall as they all too often burry any valid critiques they may have within a large pile of baseless ultra paranoia and wholly unbelievable narratives of pure speculation. You, unfortunately, are a prime example of why the term 'conpiracy theories' has such a negative connotation.

Above-- I'm sorry, but your definition of fascism is practically a direct quote of the wiki definition, which is, misleading. Just read the following few sentances to have a better idea of what fascism really is. Again, I'm sorry... but you're mostly off base here.--68.226.66.173 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

1. - See instructions re: personal attacks.
2. - (Clearly) Feigned superiority is of use to no one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.179.119 (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well the Rothschilds certainly are fascist if you look at the economic perspective of fascism. Even Wikipedia itself talks about one characteristic being "corporatism" or the merging of government and big business. I don't see how someone can disagree that the Rothschild family has been involved with this sort of activity and to be honest I find the motives of those defending the Rothschild family in this matter as SUSPECT. There's a difference between being anti-semitic and an anti-Zionist.* Edited by Fatrb38

The Vatican's Bankers

Barons have always ran the empire for the Vatican or the Pope. As Barons, the Rothschilds were/are bankers of various empires as related to the Vatican Bank treasury. And this is recorded in the Jewish Encyclopedia:

"Rothschilds (...) are the guardians of the papal treasure." -Encyclopedia Judaica

Rothschilds are as well Famous Freemasons, the Templar order being found within. This is key to understanding international banking as not all bankers are Jewish yet they are all knights. As Knights the Rothschilds changed their last name when they converted long ago. 75.120.187.48 (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Rothschilds are Knighted Templar-Freemason bankers. "Nathan and James, were members of the Emulation Lodge, London."...."On 22 October 1806 in London Nathan married Hannah Barent-Cohen (1783–1850), daughter of Levi Barent-Cohen (1747–1808) and wife Lydia Diamantschleifer and paternal granddaughter of Barent Cohen and wife, whose other son Salomon David Barent-Cohen (d. 1807) married Sara Brandes, great-grandparents of Karl Marx."[1]...."In 1818, he was granted noble status (Freiherr or Baron) by the Emperor of Austria, although he chose not to use his aristocratic title Nathan Mayer, Freiherr von Rothschild."[1]...."Barons who received their title from the Holy Roman Emperor are known as Barons of the Holy Roman Empire, Reichsfreiherr, although the title is sometimes shortened to Freiherr."[1] 75.120.187.48 (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Any genealogical data establishing a relationship to the 12 tribes?

I've heard through various people that the Rothschild's are allegedly descended from the Tribe of Dan. However doing an initial library search and a query across several journals I'm finding no hits confirming this assertion. Is there any other ethnological data describing the family's roots? --Xtraeme (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Should Friedrich Salomon Rothschild be linked here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.45.158 (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

I would like to suggest that the section currently entitled "Conspiracy theories" should be renamed to something like "Alternative theories". My justification for this is that the term "consipracy theory" is contentious and often considered pejoratove (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories#Controversy ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverFox93 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

no, it shall stay conspiracy theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.99.67 (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The word theory should be taken out completely and the section should be changed to critism. Saying that they control a large amount of the world's wealth is not a theory, it is objective fact. The managmenet of that money has long come under critisim from various parties 68.188.25.170 (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well given your confidence that it's an 'objective fact' it should be dead easy to come up with a citation to verify this statement, suspect you will find this a bit of a challenge.Tmol42 (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"this entire article needs to be deleted and restarted, it is fillled with groundless conspiracy threoies and uses discredited sourceing."

It is the responsibility of the editor in question to justify his/her position with specifics and make a good-faith effort to achieve a genuine consensus — not simply to say in edit summaries that problems are obvious and require no explanation. I have put a comment to this effect on the IP address's talk page. Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:40 16:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Rothschilds' Crimes not cited

There are plenty of serious offenses and crimes attributed to this family and yet none is cited in this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.122.69 (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is quite long, could you explain what you mean? Does the article contain unsourced allegations of crimes or does it lack coverage of well-documented offenses by the family? In the first case, you should tag the places needing citations with {{fact}} and in the second case, add the information yourself but only if you can verify it with a reliable source. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

For example, there are reliable sources that affirm the Rothschilds are involved in slavery and yet if you put the sentence in the lead section (or elsewhere) it will get deleted unmistakeably. See here for the source. According to my own previous experience, there are a group of people here who are working & coordinating outside of Wikipedia with the task of censoring any unfavorable information about this family and Zionism. This is a form of censorship and intimidation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.122.69 (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any such addition in the recent page history, only very misguided attempts to highlight them as Illuminati members by blanking content and someone who thinks this article is racist removing lots of sourced stuff (both of these were reverted). Personally, I don't believe in cabals, so I doubt any properly sourced and neutrally worded message will be instantly reverted. However, as I hinted earlier, this article receives its fair share of vandalism and other disruptive edits, which explains why some people may be a bit too vigilant when it comes to this article. About your source and the claim, that does not belong in the lede, but a mention in the article body might be appropriate. There are however a few problems with that source - first, it's not free to read and by what I see it contains almost no info about the subject - just "involved in slavery" without any details. I urge you to search for a better source. And also, just a reminder: Wikipedia doesn't tolerate personal attacks so if you have to debate about this, you probably won't get much further by accusing people of Zionist conspiracy. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, might I add, slave trade was still considered a legal business during much of the 19th century. Labeling it as "criminal" isn't appropriate. Having taken a look at the article, I'm also fairly sure that a single member's slave business that is only vaguely mentioned in the source isn't needed in this article, because this article is about the family as a whole, not individual people's less notable exploits. Would be a different story if the entire family was busy shipping slaves cross the Atlantic. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The source is very relevant. It is the Financial Times (FT) and yes cabals do exists! You don't need to believe in it just observe the facts. The reverts were done in other articles and they were reverted numerous times. The FT accusation is slavery and it is a central crime. For you it seems it is a detail. The good thing about Wikipedia is that EVERY edit leaves a trace... So what I say is plain factual (regarding the cabal and the rest). You seem to be very inclined to protect and defend this family without due consideration for the accusations here.. If you know this family well, you also should ask why is it that this family has an alleged fortune in trillions of dollars and nobody seems to make a mention of the implication of it for society. How is it that major media says that Bill Gates is the richest? Wikipedia is hurting its credibility by not making such corrections. Moreover, CRIME must be involved NECESSARILY to obtain such sums of money. It also means Tyranny is at play here to cover it up...I will not argue with you anymore since wikipedia is NOT a forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.253.21 (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Bloody shame, I thought you were something else than a conspiracy theorist. In any case, my arguments in short: slavery was normal and legal in many places until late 19th century when it begun to dwindle. If we were to retroactively judge people because they didn't match our current values, we'd have to add almost every military leader and politician before in the category:Terrorists. Also, as I said, the Financial Times source contains very little information, is not free to read and is hardly important to the family as a whole. Your comment contains a lot of original research which is not allowed in articles. Please stop these cabal accusations because they won't help at all. Zakhalesh (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

So then there is no reason not to talk about the family's involvment in the slave trade then? 68.188.25.170 (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

original surname Bauer

http://www.theworldsprophecy.com/the-true-geneology-of-the-rothschilds-who-are-they/

idk if it is just another conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.196.201 (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

125,000 acres is not equal to 22.36 sq km

I don't know which figure is correct, so I didn't correct it. FWIW 125,000 acres = 505.86 sq km and 22.36 sq km = 5,525 acres. Too Old (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Mont, 2006.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mont, 2006.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Original name

This is probably stupid, but a few of my friends insist that Mr. Rothschild changed his name from something else TO Rothschild. Is that just a myth? Some of these conspiracy theories going around today are crazy, but scary if true. Thanks.66.76.20.130 (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Stacy

Talk pages are for discussion about contributions and improvements to the article. If you have a question about the Rothschild Family you can try raising it here. Tmol42 (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I could tell, this was a discussion about the content of this article and if true, would have improved it.Angry bee (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

See Rothschild Family in Frankfurt

In medieval times Jews often had no lastname, because (no pun, just ooooversimplified), they roamed around for the promised land, since Moses started leading them out of slavery.. all one tribe, sons of sons of Abraham. In the url a gave, you can look at Jewish family names, the new arrived were often named after the towns they came from. Jews were no citizens of Frankfurt, but paid taxes to the Rabbis, which then payed the taxes to Frankfurt. No register-entry in the town-book.

                  Had name => told Rabbi
                  Had no name, came from Bilefeld => Rabbi: Bielefled  is your name. Bielefeld you pay 2 Schilings taxes monthly.

With the Rothschilds it went like this: The "ancestor" Isaac "zum roten Hahn" (his "last name" was the house he lived in :house to "the red cock") build a big house for multiple families, put a red plate on it, so it could in hebrew and german be addresses as "red plated house" / "Haus zum roten Schild", but lived in the "green plated house". You know they had their own mailman, who could read hebrew and german. His ancestors were called "Red-Plate" / "Rothschild" no matter in what the house they lived, just as it suited the rabbis or was needed to know which Isaak or Joseph we are talking about. So to Angry bee: no scary conspiracy, just customs,scholars and history... but yes they went once by the name Hahn.

      As for the translation: "roth" or "rot", that does not make old-german of it, just old-stylisch writing.
      And "Schild" can be transleted to shield , I chose plate, because a military-sounding name would not be in the intrest of a jewish familiy.
      Excluded from military and property. That changed both when they were gentled(and had that symbol in their family name.

Hope it helps, dont mean to insult anyone, over and out... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.106.96 (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Attempt to defuse edit war

While one new anon editor is up to 6RR by my count, I am hesitant to go the quick blue root, but will try to work around it, since Johnson apparently has become acceptable to all. It seems to be a matter of what material is included and where. Since p.314 has been otherwise chosen, I will accept that RS'd source, but will pick it more neutrally than its first one sided transcription. I will also and again restore the repeatedly deleted ref'd para as last attempted, with the hope that the anon will choose continued involvement within policy over his personal opinions and the alternative administrative sanction, should they see it that way. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This web page will attract conspiracy theories and editing wars, until another web page is created entitled "Rothschilds Conspiracy Theories" or the like. There would be a list of all the most popular theories. Conspiracy theorists will edit that article instead of this one. There, theories could be debunked with facts too. A Google search on the word "Rothschilds" fetches 1.5 million articles, many of them about the conspiracy theories. It's a highly popular subject on the internet, especially Youtube, but oddly absent from Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, you can read the backround of every Pokemon (which is pure fiction), and theories about aliens and bigfoot, but not conspiracy theories about the Rothschilds. Debunking conspiracy theories prevents belief in them, and prevents further editing wars too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.10.113 (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

For sure, Rothschild conspiracy theories are a staple of the far-right and anti-semites generally and a section in this page or a separate article could cover them but one problem from an NPOV view is that there has been little independent critical analysis in the sources (because they are regarded by academic historians of the family and banking generally as nuts), so we would in effect be creating another (Wikiedpian) outlet for the wacky fringe. I tend to resist these moves unless there is good material available that discusses such "theories" (actually just hate-ramblings) objectively. I will also take a look to see if it has been raised before at the fringe theories noticeboard. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Just because some fact is negative towards a Jew does not mean it is anti-semitic. It is simply the facts. I haven't read any of these conspiracies but such blatant dismissals and labelling of all as "far-right and anti-semites" seem odd. Angry bee (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Anti Semitic Statement

"The Rothschilds completed a process the Jews had been working on for centuries: how to immunize their lawful property from despoiling violence."

This statement reads like a propaganda piece on antisemitism. Has anybody read the citation? Can this statement be put in better context? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.4.86 (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2011‎ (UTC)

Please sign your statements. Just type 4 ~'s. Anyway, you are free to remove that statement if you reasonably believe it to be hateful and unsourced. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you *think* it is, enough of that politically correct nonsense. It's a statement and it should be rightfully sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.175.27 (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV language in conspiracy theories section

"Over more than two centuries,[15][16] the Rothschild family has frequently been the target of conspiracy theories."

The word "target" here is NPOV. It implies that the conspiracy theories about them are primarily intended to attack them out of some bias or as an end in itself. I would imagine most conspiracy theorists would dispute this view. Normally the word "subject" would be use, as ought to be the case here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.18.66 (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

So there was a patently anti-Semitic text in the conspiracy theory section! Henry Makow! Definitely not a reliable source. I tidied up the language and made it all a lot less sinister and a lot more clear that these theories are false. Sailingfanblues (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

German name

I deleted the remark "(red shield in German is roth schild)", as it seems to have been tacked on as an afterthought. Firstly - at least in Modern German - it would be "roter Schild" (though if anyone has a source for what it would be in 18th century German, fair enough), and secondly, the origin of the name is already explained more convincingly in the final paragraph of the "Origins" section. Extenebris (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC) red shield in Modern German is 'rotes Schild'. greetings from Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eulermatroid (talk • contribs) 21:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"Das Schild" refers to a sign, e. g. a road sign. "Der Schild" refers to a shield (personal armor) or an escutcheon. Therefore "der Schild" resp. "roter Schild" is the right version in this case. Best regards, --77.64.254.128 (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Fake web fake wine

Vineyards Domaines Barons de Rothschild (Château Lafite Rothschild) Rupert & Rothschild Vignerons

maybe fake

Baron Philippe de Rothschild SA (Château Mouton Rothschild) Compagnie Vinicole Baron Edmond de Rothschild (Château Clarke) - Edmond de Rothschild Group

Please sign your posts. Just type 4 ~'s. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The Napoleonic Wars

"The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World" says, that this is just a legend: "Yet the reality was altogether different. [20] Far from making money from Wellington's victory, the Rothschilds were very nearly ruined by it. Their fortune was made not because of Waterloo, but despite it." 93.85.217.25 (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy

This article caters to conspiracy theorist, and has way to much unless and non factual information in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.36.3 (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Wording of the lede

Per WP:BRD: since the revert had no edit summary whatsoever, I wonder if I could receive an explanation on this talk page. Which of the contents I added was wrong or otherwise inappropriate? Why is a book on "Managerial History in Japan" (ISBN 0195131657) a better source on the Rothschilds then a book on the Rothschilds themselves (ISBN 0670868574)? And why did you revert my correction of "1800s" (which can mean both the decade and the century) to the less ambiguous "19th century"? --bender235 (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You added things to lede (for example about them originating as Court Jews), which were not only unsourced but also factually incorrect to anyone who has read about the subjects of the article (they had much more humble origins). The source at the top is also from Oxford University Press - it's the most reliable source that could be found on the matter. The 19th century correction is a good idea - apologies I didn't see that. Avaya1 (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but contrary to your belief, the publisher does not make a source credible. The author does. Which is, however, not to say that your Japan book isn't a reliable source. It sure is. However, it makes little sense citing this off-topic book when there are countless books available on the actual subject of this article. One of which I named (ISBN 0670868574).

Of what I added, nothing is wrong. Everything, including the origin as Court Jews is sourced. If needed, I can provide more sources. For example, I might refer you to the chapter "The Last of the Court Jews: Mayer Amschel Rothschild and His Sons" (pp. 79–96 in ISBN 3-7913-1624-9). Mayer Amschel Rothschild started as what is now known as Court Jew. He was named "court factor" by William I, Elector of Hesse in 1769 (see p. 65 in ISBN 0670868574). Can you provide reliable sources that say something different? --bender235 (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The publisher makes the source credible, not the author (otherwise deciding on which author is credible would be purely subjective). Secondly, the book is not 'off-topic' but discussing the subjects of the article in this passage, and it is a work on family businesses and it exactly supports what your own sources say. Thirdly, Mayer Amschel Rothschild was merely entitled to hang a sign over his business, saying that he was a hoffaktor, he wasn't an actual Court Jew in the sense that historians use it as a financier serving at the court, although his sons would take on those roles. He was merely a banker operating in the Frankfurt Ghetto, with a sign over his business. And the statement you wrote about "unlike previous court Jews, Rothschild managed to bequest the wealth he acquired" is factually incorrect, since actual Court Jews (such as Samuel Oppenheimer) established banking dynasties a century earlier (there are more examples in Italy), and other Court Jews such as Salomon Oppenheim's family have maintained their family banking business from the 17th century until today. The mention of Mayer Amschel's title/sign is appropriate in the body of the article. Avaya1 (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If one (like you) reads "unlike previous Court Jews" as Rothschild being the only one to go from court factorship to private banking, then yes, the statement is wrong. He wasn't the only one. Bleichröders in Berlin did so, Seligmanns in Munich, Oppenheims in Bonn, and Kaullas in Stuttgart. All in circa 1800. (Oppenheimer in Vienna did not. He never founded a private bank. His descendents did, some decades later, in Hanover). I will fix the wording.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild was, in fact, what is now known as Court Jew. If you had bother to check the sources I named, you would've seen there's an entire chapter in ISBN 3-7913-1624-9 that describes Rothschild's role as court agent to the Landgrave of Hesse-Hanau. For instance, how he provided finance for the some 17,000 troops Friedrich II sent to North America in the 1770s and 80s.

Further, here's a quote for you, from a different chapter in ISBN 3-7913-1624-9, p. 41: "it can scarcely be denied that the Oppenheims, Rothschilds, Seligmanns, and Kaullas were court factors before they founded private banks." I hope the author wrote it clear enough.

I will revert your changes, since you have failed to provide a reliable source which contradicts the ones I provided. --bender235 (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Court Jews or not that is info for the finance section not the lede. The lede has been edited and content moved. If you can cite an exact page this should be added.99.195.110.214 (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Citing a page for what?

And second, the lede does not explain court Jew, it only says Mayer Amschel was one, and to whom. What's wrong with that? --bender235 (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That they are court Jews is good info. There's no problem with that. All Jewish barons are court Jews. It just doesn't belong in the lede, and not the detailed way it was worded. Too complicated for the lede. The paragraph has been moved to simplify who the Rothschilds are, not about their exact finance roles.99.195.110.214 (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Explaining their origin in half a sentence is not to complicated. Mayer Amschel Rothschild started as a Court Jew, that's a fact. Why not mention that in the lede? And what does this sentence mean: "As court Jews to the Landgraves of Hesse-Kassel, in the Free City of Frankfurt in the late 18th century." Your created it, please explain.

And what on Earth do you mean by "All Jewish barons are court Jews"? There is no implicit connection between a Jew being enobled and him being a Court Jew. --bender235 (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That was the paragraph moved, not sourced by myself. It should be moved on down into finance section.

Not all Jews are court Jews only when made barons to the empire. Not all barons are Jewish and not all bankers are Jewish (as implied on the court jew page). Thus the Jewish barons are the court Jews serving the empire. The very origin and definition of what is a "court Jew" (slang for Jewish baron).99.195.110.214 (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is just utter non-sense. A "court Jew" was a Jewish merchant/banker who was employed at a court by a baron (or duke, king, emperor, for that matter). They were not "made barons to the empire". Where did you get that non-sense from? --bender235 (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

And where does Court Jews impy that "all bankers are Jewish"? --bender235 (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with the complicated lede. If you want to discuss what is the court jew do it over on that page, but you are most certainly mistaken. The Jewish servant of the empire is not employed by anyone. Any servant is knighted or made baron. And the court jew can serve the empire in other capacities besides banking. Thus court jew and international banking are not synonymous as that page erroneously says. The 'court' was ran by the Templars who were the barons and ran the empire. Rothschilds coat of arms, the red shield -- all come from the Templars. Today they are Famous Freemasons where the Templars are found, since absolved. They are barons of the empire and as Jews considered "court jews" i.e. not Catholic.99.195.110.214 (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but think I'm being trolled here. Ignoring all that Templar-Freemason-conspiracy bullshit, please for one provide a source for your claim that court Jews were "knighted or made baron". And I'm talking of reliable sources here.

Also, where does this page say "court jew and international banking are synonymous"?

And finally, why did you add "As court Jews to the Landgraves of Hesse-Kassel, in the Free City of Frankfurt in the late 18th century." again? That is only half of a sentence. It has no meaning. What did you do there? --bender235 (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Family Wealth Decline dispute

The introduction to the article suggests,

"The family's wealth is believed to have subsequently declined, as it was divided amongst hundreds of descendants" (lines 8-9)n't

This doesn't make any sense.

The family appear to be largely about abundantly creating wealth through themselves (the family) by all of their daily activities. So, the more of the newer generation of Rothchilds that are invested in by the family and savvy investors, when the harvest from whatever ideas and plans they have are ripe, they reap the bigger crop. Just like they have done over the last 200 odd years.

Only this time now, there are more Rothschilds all over the world (including China) creating new financial networks, commercial bases and also jobs for those people who only wish to take salaries for their daily actvities, too (the public people, which is comprised of the large, yet humble majority of a population of a country).

It doesn't sound like the House of Rothchild are "actually" less wealthy than before, really. If they've spunked half their wealth on hundreds of seedling Rothchild Empire Hubs sprouting all over the world, then it's possible that they are poorer now because they're acting and investing on a plan to become considerably richer than me, you, or in fact, anyone else in the future. Will they succeed? Who knows? Maybe, but then others want the same thing, too.

If the Rothchilds can fundamentally participate in the emergence of a dominating global currency from all their offspring multinational banks, they they'll be able to upgrade their homes further and donate those current homes they have to the public trusts/charities they know for everyone to enjoy.

But, if they don't succeed, then they'll just have to think of something else to do as they observe many other things emerging on the global scene from within those big houses they weren't able to upgrade from.

Anyway, my point being, "The family's wealth is believed to have subsequently declined, as it was divided amongst hundreds of descendants" Hmmm... I'm dubious, to be honest. If there are hundreds of them, then it's likely that the idea is to become richer in future than before.

To be be fair to them, we all share the same goal... to be richer than before. So, they're just the same as us, only their plans and chatting skills are much better than ours. You can clearly see that for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.250.234.221 (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. To be honest, you are quite dubious. And yes, I am certain that their chatting skills are much better than yours. 171.159.194.10 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of how little hard information is in the opening. What does wealthiest family mean exactly? If you can't give me hard numbers then at least more background on where the notion is coming from. Same with the decline. According to whom, on what standards? All I can see is that they're less wealthy because it's spread over more family members. Perhaps what we're really talking about is relative wealth/influence? Anable (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

A Rothschild confession

Here, Baron Phillipe de Rothschild refers to his family as "the richest and most powerful family in the world": http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ne0gAQAAIAAJ&q=%22the+richest+and+most+powerful+family+in+the+world.%22&dq=%22the+richest+and+most+powerful+family+in+the+world.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=y4l0T7Rw4pzQBfrPxOoP&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCA

How rich are they compared to the Walton family? --95.34.150.242 (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Mendicants compared to the Waltons.117.194.229.15 (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Freemasonry

Needs to have a section on Freemasonry (N M Rothschild's name is carved on the marble slab of the most eminent Masons in London's Grand Lodge) and also a section on the Star of David symbol which they used when holding Masonic sessions. The currency & use of this symbol comes from the House of Rothschild & their commissioning of new synagogue buildings with this symbol.--Wool Bridge (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Got an WP:RS for that? --bender235 (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The barons are of the knights of the old holy roman empire that was dissolved in 1870. The secular knights rolled into Freemasonry. The Templars official website says the Templars are in FM York Rite. These Templars were / are the barons. The Rothschilds are on the list of Famous Freemasons. This "red shield" was the shield of the Templars or Jolly Roger.72.161.238.14 (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

To start with from Wikipedia: [[2]] James Mayer de Rothschild, Financier, Initiated Oct. 24, 1802: Emulation Lodge No. 12, London[27] Nathan Mayer Rothschild, Financier, Initiated Oct. 24, 1802: Emulation Lodge No. 12, London[5][27]

There is a book with a Christian agenda, called Six-Pointed Star: Its Origin and Usage by O J Graham, ISBN-10: 0968938302, which has some reasonable facts mixed up with a paranoid Catholic rhetoric against Freemasonry. In Hebrew the Hexagon is the Magen David which means the Shield of David and the Red Shield is the description of this symbol on the House of Rothschild's coat of arms. The hexagon denoted Freemasonry in the late 17th or early 18th century with reference to the temple of Solomon , later it symbolised Jewish Freemasonry and now it symbolises Judaism alone. This is confusing for the layman who finds this symbol in all kinds of diverse places from Islamic buildings to such things as the Orange Order or US state institutions --Wool Bridge (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The history of the origin of the family name is false

As is shown by this article in the NY Times dated Oct 11, 1863.

The House of Rothschild

Among all the congresses held this summer, of princes, lawyers, musicians, schoolmasters, social science men, political economists, and a hundred others, one very notable meeting has almost escaped public attention. A few days ago, our Paris correspondent told us that a congress of the members of the illustrious house of Rothschild has been sitting at Paris. The purport of the meeting was nothing less than to rearrange the dominions of the great banking dynasty. In one word, the great object of the Rothschild congress was to reduce the five branches of the house who now rule Europe to four, and following the example of Garibaldi (hard to read, think that's the name), to strike another sovereign of Naples from the list of reigning monarchs. Henceforth there are to be but four kings of the house of Rothschild, with secure thrones at London, Paris, Vienna, and Frankfort. It is now exactly a hundred years since poor Jew, called Mayer Anselm made his appearance at the City of Hanover ; barefooted, with a sack on his shoulders, and the bundle of rags on his back. Successful in trade, like most of his co-religionists, he returned to Frankfort at the end of a few years, and set up a small shop in the "Jew-lane," over which hung the signboard of a red shield, called in German roth-schild. As a dealer in old and rare coins, he made the acquaintance of the Serene Elector of Hesse Cassel, who, happening to be in want of a confidential agent for various open and secret purposes, appointed the shrewd-looking Mayer Anselm to the post. The Serene Elector being compelled soon after to fly his country, Mayer Anselm took charge of his cash, amounting to several millions of florins. With the instinct of his race, Anselm did not forget to put the money out on a good interest, so that, before Napoleon was gone to Elba, and the illustrious Elector had returned to Cassel, the capital had more than doubled. The ruler of Hesse Cassel thought it almost a marvel to get his money safely returned from the Jew-lane of Frankfort, and at the Congress of Vienna was never tired of singing the praise of his Hebrew agent to all the Princes of Europe. The dwellers under the sign of the Red Shield laughed in the sleeves; keeping carefully to themselves the great fact that the electoral two millions florins had brought them four millions of their own. Never was honesty a better policy.

Mayer Anselm died in 1812, without having the supreme satisfaction of hearing his honesty extolled by kings and princes. He left five sons who succeded him in the banking and money-lending business, and who, conscious of their social value, dropped the name of Anselm, and adopted the higher sounding one of Rothschild, taken from the signboard over the paternal house. On his deathbed their father had taken a solemn oath from all of them, to hold his four millions well together, and they have faithfully kept the injunction. But the old City of Frankfort clearly was too narrow a realm for the fruitful sowing of four millions; and in consequence, the five were determined after a while to extend their sphere of operations by establishing branch banks at the chief cities of Europe. The eldest son, Anselm, born 1773, remained at Frankfort; the second, Salomon, born in 1774, settled at Vienna; the fourth, Charles, the infant terrible of the family, established himself in the soft climate of Naples, and the fifth and youngest, James, born 1792, took up his residence at Paris. Strictly united, the wealth and power of the five Rothschilds was vested in the eldest born; nevertheless, the shrewdest of the sons of Mayer Anselm, and the heir of his genius, Nathan, the third son, soon took the reins of government into his own hands. By his faith in Wellington and the flesh and muscle of British soldiers, he nearly doubled the fortune of the family, gaining more than a million sterling by the sole battle of Waterloo, the news of which he carried to England two days earlier than the mail. The weight of the solid millions gradually transferred the ascendancy in the family from Germany to England, making London the metropolis of the reigning dynasty of Rothschild. Like the royal families of Europe, the members of the house of Rothschild only intermarry with each other. James Rothschild married the daughter of his brother Salomon ; his son Edmond, heir apparent of the French line, was united to his first cousin, the daughter of Lionel, and grand dauther of Nathan Rothschild ; and Lionel again - M. P. for London - gave his hand in 1836 to his first cousin Charlotte, the daughter of Charles Rothschild, of Naples. It is unnecessary to say that, though these matrimonial alliances have kept the millions wonderfully together, they have not improved the race of old Mayer Anselm, of the Red Shield. Already signs of physical weakness are becoming visible in the great family. So, at least, hint the French papers in their meager notices about the Rothschild congress at Paris. From all that can be gathered out of a wilderness of canards, thin faces and thick fiction, it appears that the sovereigns of the Stock Exchange met in conference for the double purpose of centralizing their money power and widening their matrimonial realm. In other words, the five reigning kings, descendants, according to the law of primogeniture, of the five sons of Mayer Anselm, came to the decision to reduce their number to four by cutting off the Neapolitan branch of Charles Rothschild ; while it was likewise decided that permission should be given to the younger members of the family to marry, for the benefit of the race, beyond the range of the first cousinship. What has led to the exclusion of the Neapolitan line of Rothschild seems to have been the constant exercise of a highly blameable liberality, unheard of in the annals of the family, Charles, the prodigal son of Mayer Anselm, actually presented, in the year 1846, 10,000 ducats to the orphan asylum of St. Carlo, at Naples, and the son and heir of Charles (Gustavus) has given repeated signs of his inclination to follow in the footsteps of his father. Such conduct, utterly unbecoming of the policy of the house of Rothschild, could not be allowed to pass unnoticed, and, accordingly - we quote the rumor of Paris journalism - the decheance of the Neapolitan line has been pronounced. However, Baron Gustavus de Rothschild is not to retire into private life, like famous Charles V., with only a cassock on his shoulders and a prayer-book in his hand, but is allowed to take with him a small fortune of 150,000,000 francs, or about six million sterling - a mere crumb from the table of the descendants of poor Mayer Anselm, who wandered shoeless through the electorate of good King George III. It is certain that no romance of Royalty is equal to the romance of the house of Rothschild — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.107.106 (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the shield, shouldn't the description be the other way round? Supporters Dexter: a lion rampant Or (Should be Sinister) Sinister: a unicorn Argent (Should be Dexter) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.102.35 (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Relationship with the Rockefeller Family

Hi,

It's unacceptable that this reference keeps getting removed by different entities, all of whom's survival greatly depends on this family. Some may say the attempted reversions are justified as a result, but I disagree.

I currently live in a very energy-rich area in the Commonwealth, and it has been known this family (Rothschilds) have controlled our resources with the Rockefeller family.

The FT article was merely a formal acknowledgement of this alliance, which has existed for over a century and likely to the times after Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington's victory.

The source provided is sufficient, and while you may argue that there are other families heavily involved with the Rothschild family (see Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world), this one is the most important and lucrative given the Crown owns the land upon which these resources sit. 31.208.7.22 (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, right. So you're not a conspiracy theorist at all! Even if this "alliance" was appropriate content for the article, sticking a field in the infobox with no related content in the article, and a paywalled link as reference, is not the way to go. John D. Rockefeller, founder of that family fortune, was still working as a bookkeeper on a very basic salary when the Duke of Wellington died in 1852, and not born until 20+ years after Waterloo. But I don't suppose facts will bother you much. Readers might like to see the original comments here. Johnbod (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

First:

I understand your concern about a paywalled reference, and I sympathise, but when a previous user linked a similar (non-paywalled) article with similar content from Vanity Fair, a muslim (see log, and note that the reverter has an extensive history of edits almost exclusively on muslim content) reverted it trying to say vanity fair isn't a source. The inserter then gave an FT.com link.

I never said that the Rockefeller family was an "equal" to Rothschild. What I said was that they have had an alliance for hundreds of years, to which you correctly pointed out that the first Rockefeller was not "rich" and born much after 1812. However, that was never the crux of the claim I was making. The claim I was making, which is correct, is that Rothschild's relationship with the Rockefeller family is among their most lucrative because the Crown owns the land upon which the Rockefellers' energy resources sit, and over a third of the United States' crude unrefined imports are from the Crown (see EIA.gov annual crude imports by country). These unrefined materials are then refined in the United States, which give both families a handsome profit since the Crown is responsible for the enforcement of rules and regulations in the area where the energy is being extracted.

Further to this long-known, yet rarely mentioned fact is Evelyn de Rothschild acting as the financial advisor for HRH . While you could argue that the (relatively, 1989ish right?) recent appointment has no bearing on the familial "legacy" left by this family, it is a symptom of the relationship I am speaking of.

Next, Scotia-Mocatta, a subdivision of the Bank of Nova Scotia (a bank created prior to 1867, to facilitate TRANS-ATLANTIC trade), was owned by entities (the Mocatta & Goldsmid) who had lost greatly from the Battle of Waterloo (likely due to no small part by Rothschild; one Goldsmid committed suicide after Barings Bank collapsed. wonder how that happened?). These banks held much of the wealth accrued from the Napoleonic wars, and have long since been the favoured banks of Rothschild. To get an idea of how well these banks are run, consider that Scotiabank does not take second-lien loans:

"We have a very high-quality, high investment-grade portfolio. We do not take subordinated debt levels. We don’t take second-lien loans,” said Chief Financial Officer Sean McGuckin in an interview".

It should be clear and easy to see that both the Royal Bank of Canada and Bank of Nova Scotia are older than Canada (1864 and 1832 respectively), were incorporated in Nova Scotia to facilitate trans-atlantic trade, and by the time the first Rockefeller came of age: fresh for the pickings by Rothschild. These banks are responsible for Crown resources such as the one mentioned above, which exports a large of amount of unrefined energy to the United States. Rockefeller, as you surmised, is one of many subordinates of the Rothschilds, but his role is not insignificant.

These banks are (understandably, they are the world's central banks, and also mercantilist) very secretive about the loans they hold. But one way to gain insight to how wealth can be extracted, is to notice that they are incorporated into the Nova Scotia legislation. The Canadian government draws money from the Bank of Nova Scotia (see cheque1 cheques 2/3)

While these cheques are drawn on (corrupt) government officials names, to "pay back" what was taken, the 90k "return" by Nigel S. Wright was done in Duffy's name (which shows you how much power certain people have over these banks). This sort of shenaniganry is nothing new in Canada, but since it is a young country with approximately 30 million legitimate citizens, many of whose ancestors were begged by the Crown to settle it, they are often quiet about the rampant corruption of Rothschild out of fear of retribution. It is therefore my duty to speak out and defend what I feel is a noteworthy relationship, as it has come at the direct cost of the people whose ancestors were once begged to settle a cold and barren tundra that no one else wanted to.

To your original and fair point about the paywalled link, I am going to find another and use it as a citation. It should be clear that the aforementioned banks rise to prominence occurred around the time the Rockefeller Rothschild relationship developed (post 1832). The link I'm going to use is from the Telegraph that mentions their history just prior to the announced alliance in 2012. A poignant quote from this new citation is worth sharing:

John D Rockefeller got going a little later. The son of a travelling salesman, he made a fortune in food supply, before turning to oil refining in Ohio. By 1868, he owned the biggest oil refinery in the world, in partnership with his brother.

Also notice how Rockefeller miraculously got the money for the world's largest oil refinery in 1868, just a few years after the Royal Bank of Canada was incorporated (and approximately 30 after the Bank of Nova Scotia)? Also notice that his business is refining? the very same refining necessary for one third of the United States crude imports from Her Majesty's property?

Lastly, thanks for this chat. I appreciate your ability to stay civil when the original message was anything but, and that is why I am giving you (what I feel) is a very thorough and well-reasoned response with enough facts to justify retention of the alliance, but with a more accessible reference.

The Telegraph article, which I can read, mentions no long-standing relationship between the families. If there was one I think they would. Why would JDR not use one or more of the many large American banks? You produce only speculation, no facts or relevant references, except to the recent deal; it is not normally secret who financed who in such contexts. My previous comments also still apply. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Just because you're unfamiliar with OUR history (which you should be ashamed of, really. Canada may only have half the population, but we hold all of the Commonwealth's wealth!!!) and by extension, the wealth of resources in Canada (which is why Scotiabank and RBC are mercantilist-i.e. their deposits are determined by the "value" of the resources upon which they rest. this means fisheries, oil, everything!), it does not mean I am incorrect. The reason JDR did not use the other banks is because Scotiabank and RBC, as I have mentioned before, were created (especially the former) with the specific goal of trans-atlantic trade and had MORE wealth than ANY American bank at the time.

I am shocked that you are from England and even asking these questions, because it was quite clear (especially after 1812 and the Napoleonic Wars), that Canada (as The Colony of Her Majesty, originally conceived in the FIFTEEN HUNDREDS by arguably our most influential figure Sir Francis Bacon) had much more "hard wealth" than the United States and France. It should be especially obvious because they wanted Arthur Wellesley to go there during that time in order to defend what we had rightfully earned. It should not be too hard for you to see that the wealth upon which Scotia and RBC were initially incorporated with was the wealth resulting from the War of 1812 and the Napoleonic wars. The deposits held by Scotiabank at that time were, again, as mentioned in its history, with the intent of facilitating transatlantic trade.

Why do you think the great Alexander Graham Bell is buried in Nova Scotia, even though the americans insist he wasn't Scottish-Canadian?

Which bank do you think all the resulting debt/equity from the Bell Telephone Company (and resulting memorials for Alexander Bell) is originated by? Some would say Rothschild, as he does have the ability to "watch us" (via telecoms), but it is not directly.

Same goes for the Lord Kelvin's Transatlantic cable which connects in Newfoundland (again, founded by Sir Francis Bacon in the FIFTEEN HUNDREDS). Both of these innovations (telegraph and telephone) were incredibly crucial to rapid communication between Commonwealth Realms, which was especially important after 1812 and the Napoleonic wars (for cohesion).

Both innovations "covered" the United States and Canada. The Bell Telephone company spanned both America and Canada for the longest time (1877-1984 see Bell System), followed by a very questionable dissolving of the assets afterwards (which presumably was very lucrative). The transatlantic cable's "endpoint" is in Newfoundland. These technological innovations were very expensive, and fall under "trans-atlantic trade" because they required a lot of "hard wealth" (immediately-convertible bartering assets) to create (no one was willing to take a loss on this except the person putting up the money). Of course we can't "prove" Scotiabank holds all of this debt because it is OLD and lucrative, but it should be obvious that there are very few entities capable of funding a continent-wide telecommunications infrastructure for over one hundred years.

I have provided a better telegraph link that further bolsters my claim, even though it's not as strong as i'd like. You stated the new article mentions no longstanding relationship between the two families, this telegraph article does (five decades is sufficient to constitute "longstanding" in my opinion, even though it's longer than that):

The transatlantic alliance cements a five-decade acquaintance between the now ennobled Jacob Rothschild, 76, and David Rockefeller, 96, the grandson of the ruthlessly acquisitive American oilman and philanthropist John D Rockefeller. “We’ve known each other for a long time, they have a good business,” said Lord Rothschild yesterday. “We haven’t got a presence in the US and this brings together two formidable names in finance.”

So the new link is both accessible and contains clear claims of the Rockefeller Rothschild relationship, which THEY acknowledge is (at least) five decades. Further, one cannot help but feel the disclosed claims are underestimated (longer than five decades, more than just acquaintances), given their astute ability to wield the media. I feel the new link satisfies your demand of disclosing a numeric value (5 decades) to the relationship, and also a direct quote acknowledging their relationship for some time.

notice how Rothschild says he has no presence in the United States? RBC and Scotiabank are in Canada, and any loans originated do not necessarily imply presence (see this link, which allowed Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, the owners of the Golden State Warriors, to pay players with Her Majesty's money) because I do not think he owns the assets held by the bank (Her Majesty does). However, he is able to use the assets as he sees fit (lend it out, etc; he is their unquestioned financial agent). Hence the Bell Breakup, hence the purchase of a bank that funds a Ponzi scheme "Venture (Vulture) Capital" firm KPCB (who recently valued Snapchat at 18b (before Perkins' death), really?).

edit: I should also mention that you are now in danger of violating the Three-revert rule, as my most recent insertion provides clearly accessible evidence of a longstanding relationship which you claim is very minor. I hope you respect the rules here, as you have no grounds to revert for a third time. 31.208.7.22 (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)