Talk:Franz, Duke of Bavaria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Titles

I thought that titles are recognised in German law, being stated on birth certificates.

I believe he does use the titles of Bavaria, but as for the title of "King Francis II of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland" he does not. Espeically that of France since i believe, the current monarchs of the United Kingdom droped that title. As it was a moot title anyway since France was a republic at the time they droped it.

Since August 1919 all titles of nobility have been illegal in the German Republic. However, surnames based on former titles of nobility are still legal. Since the death of his father in 1996, Franz uses the surname "Herzog von Bayern" (which translates as "Duke of Bavaria"). He is legally "Franz Herzog von Bayern".
In spite of the fact that titles of nobility are illegal in the German Republic, they are very widely used there (in contrast to Austria where this is not the case). Franz is commonly called "Herzog Franz von Bayern" (Duke Franz of Bavaria) by the German news media.
Franz has never used any of the British titles which are accorded to him by the Jacobites. Noel S McFerran 11:51, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

First of all: titles of nobility in Germany are not illegal, they simply do not exist. Instead, former titles are part of the family surname. The family surname consists of the former title that was awarded to each member of the noble family (thus, Prinz/ prince, not Herzog/ duke or König/ king). That was the rule developed by laws passed in each German state after the revolution (This is an example of how these laws looked like: [1]). So the family name of the Wittenbachs was Prinz von Bayern. Legally, it is next to impossible to change that family name, as can be seen on the argument I put down here. So Franz' surname still is Prinz von Bayern. Now one may call him Herzog or Duke or Symbol or whatever, but one has to make a choice: either use his real name, which is Prinz von Bayern, or use an alias under which he is known, which could be Duke of Bavaria (in English on English WP), but not Herzog von Bayern. And by the way, German WP calls him Prinz von Bayern, because by all acounts of verifiability that is his real name, and people that are interested in him recognise him under this name. Yet I am afraid I fight a lost cause here, simply because most people that know a person such as Franz Prinz von Bayern are over-monarchistic. (I have nothing against monarchy in principle, I just don't believe in calling people by fantasy names if these names give a wrong impression about this person's status). Blur4760 23:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And regarding Albrecht: now that's a tough one: Albrecht either still was a duke, because he exceptionally retained the title after the revolution, a possibility given in some state laws for people holding titles at the moment of the revolution (in that case write Duke of Bavaria, which would not be a title of nobility, but rather a personal title to humour the person), or use the family name, which is of course Prinz von Bayern. Blur4760 00:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Naturally, I can't find the source where I read it now that I have need of it, but my hazy understanding was that there exists something of a breach between the de facto and de jure usage of noble surnames in Germany. The most obvious divergence is that created by sex: under the strict terms of the law, a female would, as I understand, be obliged to call herself, z.b., "Marietta Freiherr von Altmarck". A quick Google-assisted perusal of the present von Süßkind-Schwendi (from the same quiet backwater of Swabia as my family) suggests that females in fact use the feminine forms Freiin and Freifrau, rather than Freiherr, in their surnames. So in this subset of cases, usage favors the harmonization of the surname with the sex of the person, a deviation from the strict de jure form. I was under the impression, although perhaps I may be corrected on this, that changes in surnames as if noble titles still existed were generally respected in *custom*, if not in *law*. Choess 01:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, you are partly right. It is my understanding as well that, strictly speaking, the declination for gender is not required by the letter of the law. That is just common practice. However, this change is made by the civil servant who issues the birth certificate. So the daughter of a Freiherr von Altmarck would already receive the legal name Freifrau/ -in von Altmarck. There is no need for her to call herself other than by her legal name. A change from Prinz to Herzog as a surname exceeds this spectrum of discretion enjoyed by civil servants. That can be seen in the court cases I quoted in my entry on Mr McFerrans talk page. But of course, anyone is free to call himself whatever he wants. It is not illegal for a Prinz von Altmarck to call himself Herzog von Altmarck or whatever he chooses. Such is just not his legal name. So legally, Franz' name cannot be Herzog von Bayern. It is just an alias he choose for himself. My point is that it would be illogical to follow his choice. WP should use his legal name (Prinz von Bayern) and the name under which he is allegedly known (Duke of Bavaria). Blur4760 01:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
One of the three official content policies for Wikipedia is no original research. As Wiki-editors we merely gather and summarize what has already been written about topics. I know of no scholarly source which makes the claim made by Blur4760 (which may well be correct - but that is not the point). All the sources with which I am familiar (and this is a subject where I do have a certain expertise) claim that Franz's legal surname is "Herzog von Bayern". They may all be incorrect, but as long as that is what all the sources say, then that is what has to be included in Wikipedia. We're just not allowed to engage in original research. If there is a source which states something similar to Blur4760, then it would be appropriate to cite that. But as long as the majority of sources say the legal surname is "Herzog von Bayern", then that is what it has to say here. Noel S McFerran 02:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
That is a good argument, which I accept. However, German WP has decided to name him Prinz von Bayern, for one simple reason: Regardless of what the majority of sources may say, the law quite clearly states that his surname has to be Prinz von Bayern, and he is not allowed to change that name without a serious reason (see also de:Adel). It is widespread to refer to someone as prince or duke or Royal Highness in Germany, even though it is common knowledge that that in fact cannot be their legal name. We can keep Herzog von Bayern, but on the risk of being incosistent between German and English WP. (And by the way, currently, the article states that Franz would be the rightful ruler of Great Britain. Shouldn't it be England, etc.?)
And let's put it another way: Name me one source that really claims that his actual legal name is Herzog von Bayern, not just a source that calls him that name. Because I have provided a law that states his name has to be Prinz von Bayern and court cases, which reflect common legal knowledge and conviction that he would not be allowed to change his name for a trivial reason. For me, a German, Herzog von Bayern sounds like original research, as long as that is presented as his legal name. I do admit that he may be known as the Duke of Bavaria (and accordingly, in German as Herzog von Bayern), but not as his legal name. I know of no other former ruling house where the legal surname is not Prinz..., and I know of no case where a change of the legal name on your birth certificate was granted on the account that you have to abide by house rules, which is however exactly what you, Mcferran, claim has happened. I have another source that describes again why he couldn't be called Herzog von Bayern when he was born, and why he couldn't change his name later [2]. Blur4760 10:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Blur4760 is right. Of course, there are indeed people that are officially named "Herzog von Something " (Württemberg, e.g.) in today's Germany. That is because that title was not one that could only be achieved by being a firstborn (i. e. not a „primogenitur“ title) son/daughter. Those have been declared illegal, and are only used by the former nobles as a private hobby, as are all the "styles" like "Ihre Königliche Hoheit" (HRH). In the Wittelsbach family, the Herzog title (dukedom) was a primogenitur title, hence it was officially abandoned in legal documents, and the offical surname of the Wittelsbach family is "Prinz von Bayern", or "Prinzessin von Bayern" (female forms are allowed, I guess because "Franziska Prinz von Bayern" would look just a bit too stupid). If government members and other public persons use "Herzog von Bayern", it is because they are a) unaware of the legal situation or b) think they are being polite, or probably rather c) because they secretely like the idea of still having a nobility in Germany. Other examples of noblemen named incorrectly and illegally much throughout the German political life and, sadly, press, are "Fürstin Gloria von Thurn und Taxis" (right: "Gloria Prinzessin von Thurn und Taxis"), "Fürst Georg von Waldburg-Zeil" (right: "Georg Graf von Waldburg-Zeil"). As to the Baden family, I am not so sure, since "Markgraf" seems not to have been a primogenitur title in the grandducal family. Hence "Markgraf Maximilian von Baden" may even use kind of a right name (relly correct would be "Maximilian Markgraf von Baden", of course). In any case, his son Bernhard, who calls himself "Erbprinz", is either "Bernhard Markgraf von Baden" (if the name is official), or "Bernhard Prinz von Baden" - then his father, the so-called margrave, would also be "Maximilian Prinz von Baden"). Why "NOR" is respected more than factual accuracy in en.wikipedia, remains a secret to me. It's one of the numerous reasons I dislike this project, as opposed to many other projects in the Wikimedia family that I contribute a lot to. --AndreasPraefcke 12:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Andreas is right. When I wrote "I know of no other former ruling house where the legal surname is not Prinz..." I meant "I know of no other former ruling house where the legal surname is not (insert non-primogenitural-title, in most cases, but not neccessarily, Prinz)...".Blur4760 13:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Several points:

  1. I readily concur that the no original research policy is a significant limitation on editors. In the worst situations, it can result in the continuing spread of error. But on the whole I think it is a reasonable policy.
  2. This morning I received an email from a person who works in the Verwaltung des Herzogs von Bayern (Chancery of the Duke of Bavaria). I had asked if the legal surname had been changed after Albrecht's death (I specifically mentioned in my email the legal surname and the fact that it is difficult to change it). The response was " "Herzog von Bayern" is correct. It has been changed after HRH Duke Albrechts death, before that it was "Prinz von Bayern". " This of course counts as "original research", but I hope that it will put to rest certain concerns that the article was inaccurate.
  3. Since Blur4760 says that it is very difficult to change one's surname in Germany, the response from the Chancery would suggest that something unusual happened.
  4. "Duke of Bavaria" is not actually a primogeniture title. It is one of several titles which by right (i.e. under the monarchy) belongs to all dynasts of the Wittelsbach family (just like Pfalzgraf bei Rhein). It is just that it is not generally used, and therefore is "available" as the title used by the head of the family.
  5. The legal surname of Franz's brother Prince Max is "Herzog in Bayern" since in 1965 he was civilly adopted by his great uncle Duke Ludwig Wilhem in Bavaria.
  6. Article 109 of the Weimar Constitution says "Adelsbezeichnungen gelten nur als Teil des Namens und dürfen nicht mehr verliehen werden" (Noble titles form part of the name only; noble titles may not be granted any more). There is nothing suggesting that the head of a family cannot have a different title, and therefore a different name, from the cadet members of the family; certainly that was the case with Rupprecht Kronprinz von Bayern. (I readily admit that it is a vast oversimplication - indeed, actually, an inaccuracy - to say that titles are illegal).
  7. Jacobites have no objection to the use of the term "Great Britain" - as long as this is understood to mean a personal union under the sovereign and not an organic union of England and Scotland. It would certainly be wrong to use "United Kingdom". James II, James III, and his sons all used "Great Britain" on many occasions (including on their tombstones). Noel S McFerran 14:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
If the Herzog von Bayern's secretary response to a precise question is that his legal surname is indeed Herzog von Bayern, than I withdraw any of my objections. I take your word for it, Mr McFerran. As this case is, however, unusual, we should maybe put a footnote on the site, explaining that this name is confirmed as the legal name of the family by his secretary.
Regarding your second to last point: the fact that by birth, all members of former noble families have the same family name is a result of the specifications of the Civil Code. All members of a family bear the same family name, unless that name is changed by marriage, adoption or decree. Thus, at the moment of birth, Franz must have had the same name as his father. Any later name change is, as you concur, highly unusual, but seems to have taken place several times throughout his life. Rupprecht was a special case, because he actually held the title of crown prince at the moment of the revolution. However, Kronprinz was not his "family name" (ie name of his family). That can all be seen in the law I linked above (which admittedly is not from Bavaria, but they were more or less the same throughout Germany). Blur4760 14:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, here an article which may be interesting for those, who can read German [3]. It is a text from the 'Historic Bavarian Lexikon' and says that Albrecht, son of Rupprecht, prince and oldest son of the last Bavarian king, took the title (and name) Herzog von Bayern or Duke of Bavaria. From this time the surname (in this line of the familiy) was also Duke of Bavaria and not Prince. Although a prince with the fictious right to became king, he must be called Franz Duke of Bavaria correctly. (In the other lines of the familiy the old surname exists still). Greetings Phoe 15:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] misleading and imaginary claim to Cyprus and Jerusalem

Certain busybodies (who apparently do not appreciate that aforementioned claims of Jacobites, as well as the Wittelsbach inheritance & tradition, are a sufficient load) also attempt to create Franz a claimant to the long defunct kingdoms of Cyprus and Jerusalem, as he descends from their kings, although he is neither the heir-general nor the heir-male to that line of succession. His claim would come from the same Savoy source as the Jacobite succession. However, since the heir-general line of Cyprus etc diverted from Savoy in 1499 and passed finally to the Prince of Ligne de La Tremoille, and the heir-male is the present head of House of Savoy, tho assign Franz that claim is untenable. 62.78.104.45 09:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arrest in March or October 1944

"In October 1944, when Germany occupied Hungary, the Wittelsbachs were arrested and imprisoned in the concentration camp at Oranienburg.' This statement was switched to "March 1944" by an anon. editor with a checkered career. Can anyone verify the actual date? --Wetman 06:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The original phrase "In October 1944, when Germany occupied Hungary, the Wittelsbachs were arrested" was misleading. Germany occupied Hungary in March 1944, but the Wittelsbachs were not arrested until October. I think that the present phrase "In March 1944 Germany occupied Hungary, and the following October the entire family including Franz, now aged 11, were arrested" captures this. Noel S McFerran 22:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
I should have added that the actual date of the arrest was October 6 (although I don't think that this is important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia article). Noel S McFerran 22:25, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Image description

Today, somebody changed the image description to say that Franz is "the Jacobite heir to the throne of the United Kingdom, but does not assert his claim" (it previously said "heir to the throne of England"). There is no Jacobite throne of the United Kingdom (since Jacobites believe in separate thrones of England, Scotland, and Ireland). Since Franz's Jacobite connection is not mentioned in the opening paragraph, it seems inappropriate to highlight it in the description of the image. Noel S McFerran 12:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion?

This may be a very silly question, but it does not mention his religion? Is he Catholic? I think this is important to the article, especially in regard to the "Wittelsbach Dynasty today" part and Greek Orthodox. - Animagentile (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he's Catholic, and an active one. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does but not

If the man makes no such claim, is he not a pretender?
ThisMunkey (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)