Talk:Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed Footnote: [1] The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in the United Kingdom changed its name to the House of Windsor in 1917.

RoToRa 09:07, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why did they do this? I read that they found this advisable because of rising Anti-German sentiments. If so it would be informative to include their motivation in the article.

Contents 1 Direct the reader to some history? Split the page? 2 Leopold I of Belgium 3 Confederacy 4 Braganza-Wettin 5 United Kingdom

[edit] Direct the reader to some history? Split the page?

I don't know if anyone is watching, but might it be a good idea to split this page up into a page on the Duchy (or duchies) of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and a page on the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha dynasty? As it is, it is a bit confusing. john 05:56, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This page concerns genealogy. Should the local political, social and economic history be at Coburg (district) and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (district) and Saxe-Gotha? Some disambiguation to direct readers is needed at the top of this page. --Wetman 07:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leopold I of Belgium

I'm not competent in that area but if Ernst changed his name to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (and in 1826) his brother still has to be Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. Or he also accepted the name? --Nk 15:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All the males of the family changed their name from Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld to Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in 1826. Unmarried princesses remained Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, iirc. john k

[edit] Confederacy

Anybody know anything more about the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha recognizing the Confederacy? That's an interesting little factoid. john k 16:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I looked it up previously. It's not apparent how involved the Duke was in the decision. Consuls from various European countries were stationed in the Confederacy, chiefly in Charleston, and the CSA was unhappy that they were not presenting their credentials. The consul from SBG did so, presumably on instructions from home. I find it remarkable that such a small state as SBG would even send a consul. -Willmcw 19:54, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it seems rather bizarre. One would have thought that the Zollverein or Germanic Confederation as a whole could deal with the interests of the small German states. What was the source for this? john k 20:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't have the reference on hand, but you might check the Confederate States of America. Among present-day Confederate sympathizers that one recognition is highly prized and has been established reasonably well. -Willmcw 20:50, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Braganza-Wettin

I would think that in Portugal, getlemen, Wettin would be Guettino (or something similar to that.)--Anglius 03:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom

Please see my recent comments at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom#House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. I note that recent (since 1917) members of the UK Royal Family were added to this list some months ago, and that they are also listed in the corresponding category. I question whether they should be included in this article and category because that have been House of Winsdor for almost 100 years now, but would appreciate any feedback before I make changes. TrevorD 13:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Houses are defined agnatically. I think it is worth note. Charles 14:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you're saying? What is worth a(?) note? Should the UK Sovreigns since 1917 be listed under both House of Windsor and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, or just the former (albeit with notes about the relationship). All lists of UK monarchs I've seen list each sovreign under one 'House', with the recent ones only under 'House of Windsor'. I certainly know very little about this field but was surprised to see someone making so many far-reaching changes about which House the recent UK monarchs belong to, especially something inconsistent with all the lists, etc. I've seen elsewhere. TrevorD 23:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a similar situation: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh was born a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sønderburg-Glücksburg, which is itself a branch of the House of Oldenburg. The same applies to Windsor: All it really is, in the person of Elizabeth II, is a branch of the House of Wettin. Even though the most pinpointed form of Philip's house was S-H-S-G, he also recognized that he was a member of the House of Oldenburg when he suggested that he adopt the surname "Oldcastle". The relevant documents utilize "known as" rather than "we're not Wettins anymore, just Windsors". One cannot renounce one's paternal lineage and make it non-existant. By virtue of being a male-line descendant in a legitimate line of a male member of the House of Wettin, Elizabeth II is a member of the House of Wettin as well. That's how houses are defined. They can adopt a sub-house name whenever or if ever they wish. I think the most pinpointed form should be used. Those who used Windsor should be listed as such with notes mentioning the broader house of Wettin. George V should definitely be listed as both and I feel that the others should as well. Charles 00:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)