Talk:Duke Georg Alexander of Mecklenburg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group. | ||
[edit] Dubious
I would like to see how this source ("BZG") came to the conclusion that Georg Alexander is head of a house which is possibly extinct. Charles 18:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- So your still disputing that he was head of the house or that he only "claimed" the position or that it was "disputed"? Did I not ask you when you first put in your "neutral" language for sources. I didn't immediately revert I waited to see if you would reply. You haven't provided any sources yet here you are again disputing verifiable information. In the past you didn't provide any sources for Georg Borwin belonging to the "House of Carlow" even though when I tried to remove it you reverted me. You didn't provide any sources for the style HSH when I corrected it to HH you reverted me. So dubious that GA was head of the house no. Although you haven't been able to support anything you've said regarding this house with sources so maybe your posts on this subject should come with a dubious tag as standard. - dwc lr (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- You obviously need a lesson in civility. This is not about me and past issues with sources, it is about the authority of that source alone to support that someone is the head of an arguably extinct royal house. Keep your uncivil comments to yourself, understand? You haven't been able to give proof for something for which you require proof against. As far as facts go, it is only a claim and that is the only verifiable fact there is. Charles 23:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I really don't know why you can't accept facts. They are heads of the House. The article cites a book on the history of Mecklenburg-Strelitz which has a chapter dedicated to the House. You keep mentioning the word extinct yet you are not able to cite a single source I might as well remove the dubious tag now. Do you have a source or not? - dwc lr (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- There is no source for demorganatization, just the use of a title. Are you saying that demorganatization happened by default "just because"? People can call themselves whatever they want but it does not make it true. If there are no sources for either side than it is simply a claim. I said "arguably extinct" because I have not claimed to be in a position to settle a dynastic claim as certain or not. It is you who needs to learn that fact is only to be stated where it exists without a doubt outside of your opinion. You're only a Wikipedia editor and not more, not someone who has the final say to declare an absolute pretender to defunct throne. It really goes to show since Mecklenburg-Schwerin was removed. Do you have a source or not for the demorganatization of the Carlow branch and did you have a source when you were insisting he was the titular Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin or were you allowed to do that just because you are DWC LR and can? Charles 03:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- His father was recognised as Head of the House by Schwerin males. Yes I'm only a Wikipedia editor and as such I'm only adding things that can be sourced and that are verifiable such as Georg Alexander was head of the House. I removed the titular GD of M-Schwerin from the Borwin article because I didn't have a source but why should I let not having a source stop me right (House of Carlow, HSH, position disputed etc.). You have no sources to dispute that he was head of the House yet you add the dubious tag. It's all rather ridiculous, really your disputing something and you have nothing to back up what your saying with, your rapidly losing credibility. Where are you getting your information from is it Alt talk Royalty? Yes you and I are only Wikipedia editors but why do you take things you see on that newsgroup and believe it to be true or that it it's some sort of authority on Royal subjects. You haven't been able to justify placing a dubious tag and you have nothing to dispute it with other than your personal opinion on the matter so I'm going to remove it. Georg Alexander as head of the house can be sourced. - dwc lr (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I haven't seen a single authoritative source say that any of the Carlows were indisputably and solely heads of the House of Mecklenburg. What's this with Schwerin males apparently recognizing the Carlow branch as heads of the Strelitz line? The fact of the matter is as follows: Adoption does not change ones blood and demorganatization is a hard case to prove in all instances. It is wholly and complete neutral to make statements such as: so-and-so claimed the throne of Mecklenburg or so-and-so was a pretender to the throne of Mecklenburg. The issue is, however, when you start stating things definitively (as you did for the claim to Mecklenburg-Schwerin) when there are no authoritative sources to say that without a doubt as you have been doing and as you seemingly have always done. Also, do you have a source definitively stating that the head of one house separated the two claims and recognized what was certainly initially a morganatic line as an equal head of the Nikloting dynasty? Charles 22:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Every word in this article and the others, is and can be sourced that is why for the time being the recognition by Schwerin is not in the article. There are no issues with neutrally in the articles it is you who is disputing their position and yet you have no sources to back up that position. Yes I made an edit to this article to say he was defiantly head of the M-St house and provided a source. When you made a minor edit and said the House of Mecklenburg was "extinct" on 30 August 2007 did you provide a source for that edit or when you were Insisting Borwin was a member of a "House of Carlow". Removing that these people were and are heads of this house or implying that their positions are disputed without a single verifiable source is simply unacceptable and irresponsible you either have sources to support the dubious tag or you don't. Why should verifiable information be altered or removed to suit what is increasingly looking like your personal views on the matter. - dwc lr (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
So when is the dubious tag going to be removed I haven't seen any thing to suggest that it's inaccurate to refer to him as head of the Strelitz House or that there is even a dispute about it. Can anyone provide any sources? - dwc lr (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Since you ask for a source which suggests that he is not head of the Strelitz house: the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels. In the 1987 volume Georg Alexander and his family are not included in the Mecklenburg article in the first section (the reigning and formerly reigning families). They are only listed in the 1978 volume under the other princely families (i.e. they have the ducal title, but only as a new creation and not as dynasts of the formerly reigning house). The GHdA is a highly-regarded book of reference on princely families (although I personally wouldn't always agree with the interpretations it makes). I am not arguing that the GHdA is correct on this particular point - merely that there is a scholarly opinion which holds that Georg Alexander is not a dynast of the formerly reigning family (and therefore not head of the extinct Strelitz house). Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- So the family was upgraded I believe they listed in Gräfliche Häuser in 1973 as Carlow! Do we know where the more recent Fürstliche Häuser ones (1997, 2004) list the family. One source which could have some useful information is the book is Das Grossherzogliche Haus Mecklenburg-Strelitz which I'm guessing will say something along the lines of Georg Alexander's father was confirmed/recognised as head of the House of M-Strelitz, Duke of Mecklenburg (Highness) following agreement by Schwerin males (18 December 1950). Regarding Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels I wondering if you can recall who if anyone it lists as head of Schwerin (or whole house?) the Hereditary Grand Duke or his brother Christian Ludwig. - dwc lr (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- The point I believe is that it is not definitive one way or another but that there are possibilities. To state either as absolute fact at this point would be incorrect. I don't have access to a GHdA at this point myself so I cannot comment on what it says about the HGD or his brother. Charles 18:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I only own some GHdA volumes, and not unfortunately the 1978 (which I chose not to buy last month when I had the chance). Charles is correct however that the 1987 volume shows a scholarly opinion exists which maintains that Georg was not a Mecklenburg dynast. The Mecklenburg article in the 1987 volume does not mention any Schwerin/Strelitz branches; there is just one house and Georg is not listed as a member. "Friedrich Franz Erbgroßherzog v. Mecklenburg" is listed as head of the house. But "Christian Ludwig Herzog zu Mecklenburg" also has his name in bold type (which is only given to the heads of houses) - so it seems that on this point GHdA was being indecisive. Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Now that is interesting about the Hereditary Grand Duke and his brother so there was possibly a dispute over who was head of the house. I believe Christian Ludwig was in a Soviet prisoner of war camp from 1945-1953 so it's possible if not likely that he was not consulted about the decision regarding Strelitz in 1950. But anyway what are we going to do now the opinion of GHdA noted, wording tweaked presumably. - dwc lr (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
I'm responding to dwc lr's post of March 25 (but not indenting in order to get more room). I think that the most appropriate thing with Georg Alexander, his father, and his son, is to describe them in the first sentence as "is/was a claimant to the headship of the House of Mecklenburg-Strelitz" in place of "was the head of the House of Mecklenburg-Strelitz". This is what is done with the late Duke of Castro and other similar situations where there is more than one claimant (whether active or not). If it can be done with the Duke of Castro (who had widespread support among princely houses), then it can be done for the Carlow Mecklenburgs. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- If I get a reference for the event of 18 Dec 1950 I will come back to this issue but for now we have to change the wording now a source denying the existence M-Strelitz house has been provided though I think an example should also be given in the main text with GHdA used "On 6 July 1962 following the death of his father he assumed the headship of the Grand Ducal house though he was not included in the 1987 Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels section on the House of Mecklenburg." or some such. . - dwc lr (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- That is totally fine, just as long as it doesn't say "...became head of the House of Mecklenburg (-Strelitz)" because it is not a certain fact. Charles 06:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit war
Two editors continue to have an edit war with each other. May I ask both of them to withdraw temporarily from editing this article and allow other editors to make their contributions to improve it? The present situation is not useful or productive. Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have done all I can for now. If other editors wish to improve the article then good. My only concern is that there is a dubious tag with no evidence to support it. - dwc lr (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps other editors can come up with additional references and tweak the wording of certain statements so that there can be general agreement about the removal of the dubious tag. Noel S McFerran (talk)
