Talk:Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles of Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Contents

[edit] Clarification of name usage

I have a little question about the use of this person's name. In this article, he is always referred to as Franz Ferdinand. However, in the article for Gavrilo Princip, he is referred to several times simply as Ferdinand (just as Hitler is often used for Adolf Hitler, including in his Wikipedia article). Which one of these is the proper usage? Tony Myers 19:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected the Gavrilo Princip article. Franz Ferdinand is his first name; it can't be shortened. Noel S McFerran 21:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Ferdinand is certainly not his last name, but he was and is frequently called "Archduke Ferdinand." US newspapers in 1914, for instance, discussing his assassination, sometimes call him this, and books still do so to this day. I think this usage is incorrect (and wasn't it his plan to be Emperor Franz II if he came to the throne?), but I've never seen any clear discussion of it. john k 00:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section on assassination

I just noticed that the summary of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand has a better summary under the article for his wife Sophie Chotek. I'm wondering if that section from Sophie's page can be copied over to this page. Does this seem reasonable? And does it follow the Wikipedia's procedures?

--Sir Pimpernel 02:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why not the band franz ferdinand?

when i type www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_ferdinand why doesnt the band come up instead of this historical figure? surely in the past he is more popular but even on google franz ferdinand the band come first.

surely some historian searching for franz ferdinand the archduke would type Archduke Franz Ferdinand. but a musician like myself wouldnt type franz ferdinand band because thats not what they are called however the archudke is called archduke franz ferdinand i.e. thats what he is refered to. however i dont chat abut franz ferdinand and call them franz ferdinand band! lol "i went and saw franz ferdinand band yesterday" but i would say "i studied archduke franz ferdinand" etc. i think that you should be redirected to franz ferdinand "band" page not archduke just my thoughts anyone else?

Because the Archduke was around decades before. I mean, his assassination pretty much set the events of World War I in motion. The fact that the band has more Google juice than the person owes more to the band's current popularity than anything else. Tony Myers 19:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm... I'm not quite sure how to tell you this, but he's a pretty big deal.

This is wikipedia, not mediapedia... And saying the band is more important than the Archduke is absurd.

[edit] dab?

Shouldn't this article be at Franz Ferdinand and the rockband be located at a disambiguation page? Oberiko 10:39, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

there should definitely be a disambiguation page. can't find the band at the moment. this is clearly not very well thought out. 81.178.235.217 01:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Birth

I have changed Franz Ferdinand's date of birth from July 18 to December 18. The Encyclopædia Britannica, in all its incarnations, full, student, and concise, has December 18. Moreover, if you search on google either for Francis Ferdinand or Franz Ferdinand, the majority of results that are returned favor December 18, except those that are explicitly based on this Web page. If anyone has a sound source that favors July 18 I'll be happy to revert.

[edit] Grammar / Style Concerns

"A nephew of the Emperor Franz Josef I of Austria and next in line to the crown following the suicide of his cousin Crown Prince Rudolph at Mayerling (January 30, 1889) and the death of his father Karl Ludwig (May 19, 1896)." run-on sentence -Mkilly 07:24, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Assassination

It seems like this entry could use a little more information about the actual assassination, since thats why most people would be looking at it. It assumes knowledge of the assassination.

A page has been created specifically for the assassination, and some of the information which was formerly at the bottom of this page has been moved there.

What is the page? Why is there no link to it? --StanZegel 04:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
There is now a link. -- Kadin2048 14:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There was a rumor that the Berette company was responsible for his assignation to initiate world war one in an attempt to sell more guns. Is there any one who can expand the origin & details on that rumor.Xachna 02:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There is controversy in question which forearm was used for assassination, Browning 1900 or 1910 (both 7.65 mm Br caliber). Who knows the truth?

[edit] Most important

Since his killing triggered the first World War, which was largely responsible for a great deal of the rest of the century, Franz Ferdinand is considered by some scholars to be the single most important man of the 20th century.

Since these "some scholars" aren't named, and since it isn't true, I changed this to read that he could be argued to be one of the most pivotal men of the century. Tempshill 20:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I added some extra disclaimer to emphasise his incidental nature in "starting the war." You might as well say that Princip was the most important man of the century. Reminds me of that article "Franz Ferdinand found alive: War declared unnecessary!"

Peregrine981 13:13, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Agree with these comments - but the end result is a strange para that contradicts itself. Suggest just take out this last para - it doesn't add anything to what is said in the introduction to the article - I've done so. --Cjnm 14:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


"Franz Ferdinand and his wife were killed in Sarajevo, the capital of the Austro-Hungarian province of Bosnia and Herzegovina, by Gasaad Krince"

Does this mean to read Gavrilo Princip? Taybot 02:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Austria-Este

The following is an apparent application of wishful thinking: "Whenever the Austria-Este line dies out, the person in line to the Austro-Hungarian throne after the current heir and all his immediate heirs becomes the Archduke of Austria-Este (the "-Este" in honor of the status as Dukes of Modena, formerly ruled by the Este family), a process of inheritance called "secundogeniture." Normally, Franz Ferdinand would have become the Duke of Modena at this time, but the duchy had been unified with the rest of Italy in 1860."

Reasons against most of that crap written above:

The reason why Franz Ferdinand began to use the NAME of Austria-Este, was the will of Francis V of Modena, where he set certain conditions to the inheritor of his personal property. The testament named Franz ferdinand personally. It was not a clear abstract testament to "second".

Duke Francis was not constitutionally and otherwise able to stipulate anything about the succession of Duchy of Modena, which follows its own laws and original Este customs.

Secundogeniture is a more strict concept. It means an appanage to the second brother of a ruler. It is personal, not inherited by heir of the "second brother". After his death, it lapses to crown, or even before his death, it may go to the next ruler's second brother. Thus, the wording above is somewhat a bad joke.

It is said that Austria-Este is some sort of "secundogeniture" title in Austrian imperial family, however since it has continued to direct heirs of the originator of the branch, not reverting to the crown at the death of the carrier nor going to the next secundogeniture heir of the immediate imperial family, it does not fulfill the definitions of secundogeniture.

As explained, the first "adoptee" was Archduke Francis Ferdinand, b 1863 (not descended from Mary Beatrice d'Este), who took the name Austria-Este, and also in 1896 became the heir presumptive of the Austrian Empire, but was murdered 28 June 1914 in Sarajevo. Since his own children were born in morganatic marriage (Hohenberg), the Habsburgs designated his soon-to-be born great-nephew Robert, b 8 Feb 1915, second son of the future emperor Charles, as the next "adopted Austria-Este". Through his mother Zita of Parma (a great-granddaughter of Teresa of Savoy, Duchess of Lucca and Parma, who was daughter of Teresa of Modena, Queen of Sardinia, who was daughter of Mary Beatrice d'Este and Ferdinand of Austria, Duchess and Duke of Breisgau and Modena), archduke Robert happened to be a descendant of Ercole d'Este III and thus the blood of last Este dukes joined with the name Austria-Este.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria (1863-1914) subsequently used the title Archduke of Austria-Este. He also in 1896 became the heir presumptive of the Austrian Empire, but was murdered before succeeding as Emperor. He had married morganatically countess Sophie Chotek, and their children were not members of Austrian Imperial House (having been born in morganatic marriage), but a separate surname and title, Hohenberg, was created for them.

When Franz Ferdinand died in June 1914, Robert was not even born. Thus, no abstract testament to the "second" was executable in his favor. If the succession would have been to the "second", there was another Austrian archduke (presumably Karl's brother Maximilian, b 1895) alive at that moment in 1914, who would have been the correct heir, if AUTOMATIC SECUNDOGENITURE somehow would have happened.

Robert's "succession" to the name was only a internal agreement of Habsburgs, to put someone to carry that name.

Archduke Robert of Austria-Este (1915-1996), second son of emperor Charles I of Austria, was the next "adopted Austria-Este". He was a cognatic descendant of Ercole d'Este III and thus the blood of last Este dukes joined again with the name Austria-Este, which blood continues in all issue of Robert. Archduke Robert has decreed that all his descendants in male line are entiled to the surname Austria-Este, and he took also the title Duke of Este, which is intended to be carried by the head of the family of Austria-Este.

Very interesting, and thanks for creating the Austria-Este article to explain this stuff. A question: Did the future Emperor Karl use the "Austria-Este" title between FF's death and either a) Robert's brith; or b) his own accession? john k 14:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK he did not. Rather understandable: at that moment, he was first in line to the Imp throne, there were none left between him and old sonless Francis Joseph. The idea had been to put some cadet branch to carry on the Este name, not the presumptive heir of Austria. 62.78.105.86 00:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense - Rudolf was still alive when FF got the title. john k 02:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The Archduke Carl Franz Josef (later Emperor Karl) was named as heir of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in his will of June 3, 1907; the will required that Carl take the Austria-Este name. At the death of Franz Ferdinand, Carl did take the Austria-Este name in accordance with the will; this act was approved by the Emperor Franz Josef, October 31, 1914. After Carl succeeded to the Austrian throne, the Austria-Este name was transferred to his second son Robert, April 16, 1916. Noel S McFerran 13:08, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

In case Noel McFerran's information is correct, it then says directly that there was not and is not a secundogeniture in the case of Este. In addition, if that inheritance falls vacant, the will of the predecessor seems to determine (the fate of the property, and obligation to use the name to honor the origin of the property), not any sort of automatic system as incorrectly claimed. (And it should be totally clear to everyone that the succession of Duchy of Modena, an independent state with its own Estates etc, cannot be determined by a series of private wills.)

The purported testament of Francis Ferdinand also is now a clear evidence that the Austria-Este was not consistently intended for a cadet branch: when making that testament, FF knew perfectly well that some day Karl will succeed as Emperor. And when giving assent to Karl's new name, the head of the House, FJ, knew perfectly well that he consented to a changed surname for the future Emperor, head of the House of H-L. (Should we speculate that there was an intention to have a longer and better surname, Austria-Este, for the head of the House, in the future, and his immediate family - and the less important cadet branches would have been left with the simple "Austria"... ::)))

Robert's "succession" to the name was only a internal agreement by Habsburgs, namely by his father the new Emperor, to put someone to carry that name.

If we are to take McFarran's information seriously, then Karl should be lised as the "successor" of FF as "Austria-Este".

Still, I am puzzled about did then in 1916 that Karl cease to use the name AND did he then surrender the testamentary property.

A further check provided results that FF descended from some earlier Este dukes, not from Ercole II, but from the old dynasty anyway. Just as a significant portion of Eur Cath royals also. 62.78.105.142 20:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page Moved?

I think the proper place for this page is Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Este, and I'm pretty sure that's where it was a few weeks ago, not here at Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. We don't file pages under Titles or Styles, do we? I don't see anything in the History of this page that I recognize as an indication that someone moved this here, but then I don't know if an entry gets made there either. I'm not moving this page because it starts off with a bunch of Styles, so I'm assuming that when the Styles Template implementation take place, it will get moved to the proper place then by someone more certain than I am of where it really should be placed, as part of the general article cleanup. (Is there any sort of 'bot that will automatically take care of putting the corrected title into all referring Articles, so that the #REDIRECTs get bypassed? This person has so many synonyms!)--StanZegel 05:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

"Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Este" would only be appropriate if this individual were monarch of a country called "Austria-Este". See the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), Section 2, Other royals. Noel S McFerran 18:37, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance. --StanZegel 19:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Redirection

I don't think the search for "Franz Ferdinand" should redirect here - it should go to the disambiguation page. So I have changed it accordingly. It is only one extra click either way, and the Franz Ferdinand rock band are getting pretty big now. Deano 18:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The band was named after the archduke, therefore the archduke is the "original" one, and the "Franz Ferdinand" should go here. Isn't the guy whose murder starter World War I more important than some rock band? --HJV 18:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with HJV. While the band is getting big, the person whose murder started WWI should be the main page, with the band being a redirect. Prsgoddess187 18:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with HJV. Even if the band gets much bigger than it already is (and it's still not nearly at the level where it's as noteworthy as the person Franz Ferdinand, especially from an international perspective outside of the English-spaeking world), anyone will still need to know about the person before they can understand what the band's name signifies, since the band's name is entirely based on knowledge of the person. So not only is Archduke Franz Ferdinand still much, much more noteworthy and significant than the band (no matter how noteworthy the band gets, it will never reach the level of cultural significance of, say, The Beatles and Elvis Presley, who are, like the person Ferdinand, some of Wikipedia's most important biographical articles), but also the Archduke is the basis of the band's name, and anyone who doesn't already know of the Archduke will need that information anyway to comprehend the band; the very concept of the band's name is based on a common understanding of Franz Ferdinand. Plus since only two articles are involved, it's vastly easier and more convenient for the majority of readers to just link to one, even if it's the band, and provide a link to the other at the top, since at least half of the viewers will go to the correct place, and the rest will be no more inconvenienced than they would have been by a whole distinct disambig page. -Silence 18:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Deano. Sure, one is named for the other, but does that really make the antecedent more notable? Archduke FF is only a historical footnote. Before reading the article, I was hard pressed to think of anything he did besides be born into royalty and get assasinated. After reading the article, I realize that really was all he did, aside from choosing a suitable mate and producing heirs. Consider this: If AFF had not been shot, would he be more notable than the band? I think that the war was merely sparked by his death, and would have happened anyway due to overwhelming shifts in the balance of power in Europe at the time. The A-H empire crumbled after the war, to be replaced by democratic nation-states. This outcome would have happened with or without his assasination, meaning he ultimately never would have ruled anything anyway. My point is that this guy never did anything notable aside from being born to the right people, and dying. The Scottish Franz Ferdinand learned how to play instruments, write songs, and practiced incessantly, and as a result they sell records, and millions of people get their catchy songs stuck in their heads. Maybe its an American meritocratic bias, but I think the band is far more interesting and far more notable. Plus, I'm willing to bet that a comparison of traffic to each page, a Google test, and the number of links to each page would support the argument that it's simply more convenient to users to make the band page more immediately accessable. I think that we all have an inherent bias towards thinking of boring people that we had to memorize in school as more 'important' than popular culture figures, but I would argue that informal, everyday culture can have a bigger impact on the world and on human history than political figures. Besides, this is a wiki. If, in a hundred years, I turn out to be wrong, they'll just have to revert the redirect back. Just my 2 cents. --Alcuin 02:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, I support redirecting Franz Ferdinand to the band (or better, moving Franz Ferdinand (band) to Franz Ferdinand), and doing away with the dab page. Since it's been decided that the Archduke deserves a longer title for his article anyway, this provides a natural disambiguation. A link to AFF's page on the Franz Ferdinand page is sufficient. --Alcuin 03:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Franz Ferdinand was one of the most important Austro-Hungarian political figures for the decade before the war. If you'd actually read the article, you'd also know that one of the more notable things he did was find an unsuitable mate, thus making any children he had not be heirs (which is why it was FF's nephew, and not his son, who succeeded Franz Joseph). The historical figure is a major one who has been famous for a century (famous enough for, er, a Scottish band to name themselves after him). I imagine every schoolchild for nearly the last century or so has heard his name at some point. Franz Ferdinand, the band, much as I like them, is a band which has only been popular for a couple of years. They are explicitly named for the Archduke. at the very least, Franz Ferdinand should be a disambiguation page. Maybe for teenagers and 20-somethings, the band is better known, although even that is arguable. Can one really argue that it is better known among the population at large? This argument is ridiculous, and seemingly based on purposeful ignorance and know-nothingism. john k 03:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The duke would have had extremely important political implications had he assumed the throne in Austria-Hungary. He was considered a hard-liner against the hungarians, and in favour of a tripartate solution in the monarchy, which would have had important foreign policy implications. Saying that he wouldn't have been important is shockingly ignorant. I suspect that 50 years from now the Duke will still be talked about, but the band will have faded into obsucrity. Peregrine981 06:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AJP Taylor

This comment has been moved from the article to here:

AJP Taylor in his book "the Habsburg Monarchy 1809-1918" describes him as "one of the worst products of the Habsburg House; reactionary, clerical, brutal and over-bearing".

Taylor was not an impartial observer. Writing from his extreme left-wing perspective, he was predisposed to say uncomplimentary things about any aristocrat. In such a short article, I think that adding opposite views for balance would be going off onto a tangent. We would be better off spending the time and space on dealing with the assassination of FF which is the main reason most persons would even be looking at this article. --StanZegel 04:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Taylor was extremely left wing. He was a Labourite, certainly, but I don't think he was ever a communist, unlike many of his contemporaries (Thompson, Hobsbawm, Hill, and so forth). What Taylor had was contempt for everybody. Show me a historical figure, and I'll show you a historical figure that AJP Taylor disliked. Now, I don't think Taylor's description of FF is particularly fair. But it is interesting, and Taylor is a well known historian. In an article of this shortness, I don't see why we should remove anything unless it is flamingly POV. And quoting a major historian isn't especially so. That said, the article isn't very good. There definitely ought to be more about the assassination (btw, do we have an article specifically about the assassination?). But there also ought to be more all around - he was a very important figure in Austro-Hungarian politics in the early part of the twentieth century, and he had significant influence in foreign and military policy, especially. We really ought to have a decent all around article. Perhaps this should be a candidate for collaboration of the week to get it up to featured status? john k 05:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
His bio says Taylor had been a member of the Communist Party, and continued his red sympathies throughout his life. I think the suggestion to make it a Collaboration of the Week is an excellent idea. --StanZegel 13:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks to Stan. I have often thought that this sentence was not appropriate for the first paragraph of this article. Such a sentence might be appropriate towards the end of an article where some analysis is taking place - but even then only if that opinion is dominant (and in this particular case, I don't think that that is so). Noel S McFerran 12:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leo Valiani on Franz Ferdinand

The Italian historian Leo Valiani was born in 1909 in Fiume, which was then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Valiani wrote the following in "The End of Austria-Hungary," Alfred A. Knopf, New York (1973) pp 9-10 [translation of: "La Dissoluzione dell'Austria-Ungheria," Casa Editrice Il Saggiatore, Milano (1966) pp 19-20]:

"Francis Ferdinand was a prince of absolutist inclinations, but he had certain intellectual gifts and undoubted moral earnestness. One of his projects--though because of his impatient, suspicious, almost hysterical temperament, his commitment to it, and the methods by which he proposed to bring it about, often changed--was to consolidate the structure of the state and the authority and popularity of the Crown, on which he saw clearly that the fate of the dynasty depended, by abolishing, if not the dominance of the German Austrians, which he wished to maintain for military reasons, though he wanted to dimish it in the civil administration, certainly the far more burdensome sway of the Magyars over the Slav and Romanian nationalities which in 1848-49 had saved the dynasty in armed combat with the Hungarian revolution. Baron Margutti, Francis Joseph's aide-de-camp, was told by Francis Ferdinand in 1895 and--with a remarkable consistency in view of the changes that took place in the intervening years--again in 1913, that the introduction of the dual system in 1867 had been disastrous and that, when he ascended the throne, he intended to re-establish strong central government: this objective, he believed, could be attained only by the simultaneous granting of far-reaching administrative autonomy to all the nationalities of the monarchy. In a letter of February 1, 1913, to Berchtold, the Foreign Minister, in which he gave his reasons for not wanting war with Serbia, the Archduke said that 'irredentism in our country ... will cease immediately if our Slavs are given a comfortable, fair and good life' instead of being trampled on (as they were being trampled on by the Hungarians). It must have been this which caused Berchtold, in a character sketch of Francis Ferdinand written ten years after his death, to say that, if he had succeeded to the throne, he would have tried to replace the dual system by a supranational federation."

[User: Domenico Rosa, 28 June 2006]

[edit] Michael Balfour on the assassination

A note on the bottom of page 344 of Michael Balfour's book, "The Kaiser and his Times," Houghton Mifflin (1964) states:

"The chief instigator of the assassination was almost certainly the Serb director of Military Intelligence, in his private capacity as head of the secret society 'The Black Hand'. The Russian Miltary Attache at Belgrade equally certainly was in the secret. So was the Serb Prime Minister, Pasic who, although frightened of what war would mean for Serbia, was even more frightened of the 'Black Hand'. Pasic did send a warning to Vienna but by the time it had passed through several intermediaries, it became so muffled as to be disregarded."

[User: Domenico Rosa, 28 June 2006]

[edit] Article title

Shouldn't this page be title Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria-Este the same way that Robert, brother of Otto, is titled as Franz was the head of the Modena-Este line of the house of Habsburg-Lothringen? Charles 23:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My opinion would be: No. The section on "Other royals" in the Wiki Naming conventions suggests that "Name, Title-rank of place" should only be used in the case of a substantive title which appears to mean a title which is only held by one person, as opposed to a title which is held by all the members of a family.
It is true that during his own lifetime Franz Ferdinand was the only archduke of Austria-Este, but this is only because he did not have children from an equal marriage. Today there are five archdukes of Austria-Este, and five archduchesses of Austria-Este (not counting two additional ladies who were born archduchesses of Austria-Este).
I do see Charles' point about Franz Ferdinand being head of the Modena-Este line. Had Franz Ferdinand used the title "Duke of Modena", then I would agree with Charles (but he didn't). Noel S McFerran 00:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I wrote that in haste... I had just been doing a little reading on Este and Modena and made the error of using both when referring to the Archduke. I do think it is sort of a substantive title... Somewhat like Charles, Prince of Wales, which isn't like Prince Charles of Wales. Franz was the head of the Este line of the family. He should at least be at Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Este, even if he isn't at Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria-Este. Charles 16:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I certainly agree with Charles that Franz-Ferdinand's correct title was Archduke of Austria-Este. However, he is more commonly known IN ENGLISH merely as Archduke of Austria (try a Google search). My interpretation of Wiki Naming conventions is that we use the form of name most commonly used in English works (as opposed to a form of name which is actually more correct). Noel S McFerran 19:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Noel - it seems unnecessarily pedantic to add "-Este". john k 19:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


Perpetuating errors is not good practice for an encyclopedia. Charles 16:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
What errors? It is not an error to call him "Archduke of Austria" - it is merely a simplification, and we give the full title shortly thereafter, in the first line of the article. I repeat my contention of unnecessary pedantry. john k 18:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Simplification is fine in most cases, but being of Austria-Este rather than of Austria is a different matter. Robert is listed as of Austria-Este, as is Lorenz, etc. Charles 04:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Why dont we name it "Archduke Franz Ferdinand Karl Ludwig Joseph of Austria-Este" straight away just to give people another hell of a typing to get to this article. Just kidding. There's no point in overcomplicating things, eh. --HJV 20:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the only significant pieces of information about Robert and Lorenz is that they are the heads of the House of Austria-Este. As such, it makes sense to title their article as such. Franz Ferdinand had much else about him that was more important than being the head of the House of Austria-Este. The fact that he was the theoretical heir to an extinct central Italian duchy is of, at most, tertiary importance. john k 07:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

omg u r all nnneeeeeeerrrdss User:62.56.62.73

You are more than welcome to refrain from posting Charles 17:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

User you are the one looking at the page!!!!!!!!

[edit] Young Bosnia or The Black Hand

I don't know to which organisation Gavrilo Princip belonged - but I tire of the back and forth about this. Let's discuss it and decide. Noel S McFerran 01:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether he belonged to a group or was just an extremist but as far as I know he wasn't a member of the Black Hand. Hope that helps. "BK"

[edit] Can anybody tell what this sentence is supposed to mean?

It looks like 'amudsement' should be 'amusement', but the trouble is that even after making that change the sentence still doesn't mean anything in English. Anybody have any ideas?

'...both supporters and opponents of the Empire's existing dualist structure were suspicious of his idea for a third Croat-dominated Slav kingdom including Bosnia and Herzegovina as a amudsement what was perceived in Vienna's Ballhausplatz (Foreign Ministry) as Serbian irredentism;' MilesVorkosigan 20:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No evidence + no suggestion = no point

"No evidence has been found to support suggestions that his low-security visit to Sarajevo was arranged by elements within Austro-Hungarian official circles with the intention of exposing him to the risk of assassination so as to remove a potentially troublesome royal personage from the scene."

There is no evidence to support the suggestion. There is nobody who is making the suggestion. This is not something that somebody would rationally assume. So why are we bothering to include this? If you ask me this is just somebody trying to make a claim by denouncing it.

[edit] Deers

Franz Ferdinand killed several million animals. Number of assasined deers will be much more high than 5000. On Konopiste castle (Ferdinad's home) you could see ten's of thousand deer remnants....

[edit] Postscript Removed

I don't know what else to call it, but the "post-script" (which began "why did war breack out in europe" - see the page history) has been removed. Seemed like a grade school essay, and was totally out of place and unformatted.

[edit] Article moved

I just noticed the debate on the article's title, after I'd moved the article. What I have done is:

I only am not sure about the first move, and I would appreciate if someone with more expertise in this matter had some input into this. Apologies for any double redirects I may have inadvertently created for a future move. theProject 05:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I might as well add that our article on substantive title (over which the issue appears to be based) says that "... usually, the Crown Prince of a monarchy is treated like a holder of substantive title". If Ferdinand was the heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, as stated in the article, and was also the head of the family, it may lend credence to its current title. Again, however, I am no expert on this issue and would appreciate it if someone could shed some light on the matter. theProject 05:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intermediate edits - please check

Some odd edits showed tonight and I reverted back to the last good version I detected. Please check for accuracy. Ronbo76 02:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There are additional edits. I reverted and noted one vandalism of "travel" to "cow tipping" back to "travel". There is another probable vandalism in the location describing Sophie's term for the Archduke in her letters, but I was unable to locate a version with an authentic-looking text to revert it. I am a relatively new and very inexperienced wikipedia user who concentrates in general on naval and to a lesser extent other history articles, so apologies - but I found the whole matter of vandalism and who to report things to on the wiki pages rather UNinformative - I remain clueless after following links on whether I even should try to find and report an ID which made the inappropriate changes. So I am left with listing the matter here and making the one feasible correction. Brooksindy 05:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No hatnote?

I've asked over on Talk:Franz Ferdinand (disambiguation) why this page doesn't use a disambiguating hatnote anymore. As the talk pages and history for the relevant articles have been destroyed by editors on all sides of this debate not moving articles properly, I cannot find the reasoning for this. Any ideas?

(I'm getting deja vu about my asking this same question here before, but I, of course, cannot find that discussion the consensus of which was I seem to remember was to not to have a dab page but just a hatnote).

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 12:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use in Media

They have several songs in Entourage (HBO tv series) but I don't have the means to find which episodes. Someone should do that.

[edit] Les Gillard

What does "Les Gillard" - found in the end of the quote from by Joachim Remak's Sarajevo - mean? It certainly isn't the author's name, and a Google search came up with nothing. — Itai (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable Evidence

Just wondering, but is there anything that tells us that the second external link is valid? I mean, what's to say this wasn't some fifth grader's history project? In fact, the conspicuous use of a last initial even supports that hypothesis...

[edit] Ferdinand's Popularity

Wondering whether anyone could tell me whether Ferdinand was popular with the people, or a place I could find out the general Austrian feeling about his imminent ascension?

[edit] Full Name

It seems to me that this full name has been an invention of different people over several periods of time. I would suggest removing the sentence or sourcing it properly. Is there anyone against? Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)