Talk:Von

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] References

In the article of von you removed the reference. I wish you wouldn't do that. I took this mans intellectual property and placed it here. This man should get the credit. What basis did you use to remove the reference? It is like stealing from the man! Please don't do that.WHEELER 17:27, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Von vs Zu

Could somebody make a summary of when people use "von", when they use "zu", and when they use "von und zu"? I gather that "von" means that the person's origin is from the cited noble land, "zu" means that person is the current owner of the noble title, and "von und zu" means that they are both from the land and own the title? Is that correct? David.Monniaux 18:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Towards the end, von rarely had any relationship to anything except a titular knighthood - roughly the same as "sir" in a British knighthood, but hereditary if it had been created as a hereditary title. Von und zu meant that the noble title actually reflected - or at least at one time had reflected - an actual feudal overlordship of some strip of land somewhere. By WWI, of course, German land was fully capitalist and feudal land relationships were little more than ceremonial where they had not already ben abolished completely. So Herr von und zu Herzogenflügelburg might well never have set foot in Herzogenflügelburg or even be clear on where it had once been, since some of these feudal holderships were no more than a few hundred acres, and the smallest ones were abolished completely during the Napoleonic reforms in Germany.

Actually, I think some of those land holdings had been fictious even when they were created by the Emperor, so even this generalisation isn't true. I'm pretty sure the Freiherr von und zu Lilienburg had never set foot in Lilienburg (which I think is a monastery in Bavaria).

I guess you could say that von is old money, and von und zu is really old money. :^)

At least that's my best recollection. I can't offer you a source for it, and I make no warranty for it. --Diderot

The way I translate it is this: 'von' alone means 'of' and 'zu' alone means 'of'. The latter would have indicated a family seat, territory or property. When used together, as in 'von und zu', a safe translation is 'of and in'. It makes sense at least in my head. -- cfvh

[edit] Questions

What is the Wiki practice regarding the translation of "von" or "zu" in articles? I've noticed several instances wherein German/Austrian nobles, ie Prince Alfred von Auersperg (the first husband of heiress Sunny von Bulow, for instance, have had their vons and zus translated, in article titles and in text, as "of". This seems somewhat ridiculous, to translate what in many cases is now a surname rather than a noble title. Any observations/comments? Mowens35 15:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it correct to write "von" with lowercase "v" also at the beginning of a sentence? Very often this kind of practice is seen in books, websites, and newspapers. This Wikipedia page should explicitly state whether "von" can be written in lowercase in beginning of a sentence, or is it an error (albeit a very common error). Example of potentially erroneus usage: "von Waldersee was born in Potsdam to a military family." (This sentence is from the Wikipedia entry of "Alfred Graf von Waldersee".) Please edit the "Von" page, if you know the answer.