Talk:Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	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]
	This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

[edit] Mecklenburg

Why is Georg Friedrich listed as the dynastic claimant to Mecklenburg? First, there are still de-morganatized male-line descendants of this deposed dynasty that use the title "Duke of Mecklenburg" pursuant to family agreement (one such duke is wed to a Hohenzollern princess!). At the very least, I would expect these Mecklenburgs to challenge this claim, rendering it non-NPOV. Second, the claim is extremely obscure and unproven, having only been put forth after the abolition of both the Mecklenburg and Prussian monarchies, and then only quite recently as part of online discussions among a few monarchists and genealogists. Is there any evidence that Georg Friedriech is even aware that he is supposed to be the current Grand Duke of Mecklenburg? I fear inclusion of this reference trivializes what many are already prone to regard as a matter (heirs to defunct thrones) that is no longer worthy of attention in a modern encyclopedia. Lethiere 09:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There was a pact. When the line of Mecklenburg-Werle became extinct in the 1500s, the Margrave (Marquess) of Brandenburg claimed that portion. He was denied it, but there was a legally binding pact made that the Margrave of Brandenburg held all residual rights to all of Mecklenburg on the extinction of the dynastic male-line of the house. There are no dynasts left to Mecklenburg. There are two duchesses of Mecklenburg and some dukes of Russian creation. However, the Russian dukes of Mecklenburg do not hold that title as agnates of Mecklenburg. It was granted to the morganaut Georg Alexander Michael Friedrich Wilhelm Albert Theodor Franz, Count of Carlow, with the style of Serene Highness by the pretender to the Russian throne, Grand Duke Cyril. It has no bearing on the headship of all of Mecklenburg though. That right belongs to the dynastic heir of the Margrave of Brandenburg, which is now George Frederick, titular German Emperor, King of Prussia and Grand Duke of Mecklenburg. The Mecklenburgs can't challenge the claim as all eligible dynasts are dead. Mecklenburg has a rich, complex history and it's relation to George Frederick and his eligibility as Grand Duke of Mecklenburg are worth mention. Charles 16:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Charles about the historical facts. But I think that the Mecklenburg statement should NOT be in the first sentence of the article. It's a relatively minor bit of trivia which should be tacked on at the end of the article instead. Noel S McFerran 20:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you present evidence on what basis the elector of Brandenburg claimed the Werle inheritance? (apparently in c 1440, not in 1500's, since the last surviving lord of Werle died c 1438 - the elector at that time was Frederick II of Brandenburg, who however in 1470 died without surviving sons and was succeeded by his younger brother.) Afaik, the Brandenburg were not descended from the Werle nor from any other close way from Obotrites princes. Marrtel 11:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meckelnburg

I really think that you should add that the Mecklenburg claim is disputed - for the clarity of your article. In 1950 the head of the Mecklenburg house recognised the Count of Carlow as a dynastic member of his family, and his heir presumptive. If you agree that he was the head of the house, according to German Law he had the power to declare members of his house either dynastic or not. If indeed the present prince of Mecklenburg be excluded from succession, it would be because he is not Lutheran, as was required by the old constitution of those principalities.

It would be also intersting to find out, if the Hohenzollerns claim the Mecklemburg titles. From what I know - they don't.

Kazimierz Bem

That would have been in totally contravention of the pact. The Prussians were considered dynasts and the Count of Carlow was not. therefore, his rights, if any (and there were none), were superceded by those of the Prussian royal family. All that was and could be recognized was the *Russian* creation of the title duke of Maecklenburg with the style of Serene Highness. Noting any dispute is the same as noting the Jacobite claims at every Hanoverian, Saxon and Windsor monarch of the United Kingdoms pages. Karl Michael of Mecklenburg-Strelitz renounced any claim to the throne of Strelitz. It was he who adopted his morganaut nephew and he could not transmit any rights through him. For the purposes of Mecklenburg succession, George Borwin, Count of Carlow, doesn't exist. Charles 19:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The Count of Carlow was recognised as dynast not by his uncle but by the last Duke of Mecklenburg Schwerin. Like I said, the dynasts were free to choose who was morganatic or not. Apparently the house of meckenburg changed its mind. A good example of that is the deceased Dutch prince consort Berhnard von Lippe Bisterfeld: born morganatic, in 1915 recognised as dynastic.

The chances of either of them ever resuming the thrones are remote. What I am asking for, is that you put down that the claim to Mecklenburg is debateble. Which it is.

Thanx. Kazimierz

Please continue conversations under the same heading. I've fixed it this time. Lippe operated on different rules than Mecklenburg. Mecklenburg house laws state that a morganaunt or a former dynast cannot (re-) included without the consent of the other dynasts, which included the members of the Prussian Royal Family. Such a thing did not happen. George Borwin of Carlow is not a dynast. Charles 18:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There are several reasons why Kazimierz is correct and why I support his request that Prince Georg Friedrich's "claim" to Mecklenburg be cited, if at all, as disputable:

1. There are agnates of the Grand Ducal House of Mecklenburg who claim the ducal title and style, and were authorized to do so by the previous claimant, and who may, therefore, claim the Grand Ducal legacy as well.
2. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Prince of Prussia is even aware of, much less actually "claims", the Mecklenburg Grand Ducal title or legacy.
3. Mecklenburg's house law in this case is governed by Private German Princely Law, which stipulated that the agnates of a dynasty (not "dynasts" which would include female-line Mecklenburg descendants as well as Hohenzollerns) could waive the requirement of Ebenburtigkeit in favor of an agnate of the family if this was done unanimously. When Hereditary Grand Duke Friedrich Franz (1910-2001) accepted Count Georg von Carlow as HH Duke Georg of Mecklenburg in 1950, he was Head of the House and there were only two other dynastic agnates remaining, his younger brother Duke Christian Ludwig (1913-96) and his grand-uncle Duke Adolf Friedriech (1873-1969). We do not know whether or not these princes agreed, then or later, to de-morganatize their Carlow cousin at the behest of the Head of their House. But since they had fathered only daughters, they knew that the choice for the dynasty's future (such as it was, the throne having long been lost in 1918 and most of the former realm having been absorbed into communist East Germany) lay between Georg Carlow, an agnatic cousin accepted by their paterfamilias as a Duke of Mecklenburg whose eldest son was married at the time to an Austrian archduchess, or a Prince of Prussia of another dynasty. It is perfectly possible and arguably likely that these princes consented to the dynasticization of Georg Carlow for the purpose of representing the Mecklenburg claim in the legitimate male line. Even if they did not, since the Hereditary Grand Duke became the last dynastic Mecklenburg prince in 1996, he could then have confirmed (or upgraded) the dynastic status of the Carlow morganauts unilaterally. Until the circumstances and extent of the recognition of Duke Georg's branch are known, any Prussian claim to Mecklenburg must be considered in doubt, and the throne in dispute between at least two claimants. For the right of dynastic agnates to de-morganatize other agnates, see: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/Zoepfl.htm#Misalliances
4. Even if the 1442 claim of Brandenburg to Mecklenburg theoretically survived the abolition of the Holy Roman Empire, and the German Empire (and that would require considerable research in the historical law of the Mecklenburg grand duchies to verify), there is no clear legal proof that Mecklenburg's throne would now have devolved to the present Head of House of Prussia.

1. 1. Neither Mecklenburg nor Brandenburg practiced primogeniture in 1442. Mecklenburg did not become heritable by primogeniture until 1701, yet the last time the pact was renewed confirming Brandenburg's residual rights to Mecklenburg was 1696 -- before the partition into the Schwerin and Strelitz branches that became two separate, sovereign nations in 1806. Therefore, all the Hohenzollerns of Brandenburg (now "of Prussia") are heirs severally and equally to the Mecklenburg ducal territories and title -- and there are a lot of them alive today. But after 1806 German succession pacts that would have required the division of a nation into appanages for dynastic cadets came to be considered constitutionally unenforceable.
   2. Georg Friedrich is not even the primogeniture representative of the Brandenburg claim, even if it were determined that Mecklenburg could be inherited by that representative. In 1442 and 1696 Mecklenburg had no laws requiring Ebenburtigkeit (equality of birth in marriage). When it did adopt such laws, they applied only to agnates of their own dynasty, not to any heirs of another dynasty. Prussia, of course, enforced its own laws of Ebenburtigkeit -- under which Georg Friedrich is the current Head of the House of Prussia. But Prussia's equal-marriage laws cannot be applied to the Mecklenburg inheritance. Georg Friedrich is, in fact, only 8th in line among the Prussian Hohenzollern males according to strict masculine primogeniture. He is heir because the two elder brothers of his late father renounced, and because their sons and agnatic grandsons were born of "unequal" marriages. If the primogeniture representative of the Prussian princes is the rightful heir to Mecklenburg, that is currently Prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia, born 1939 -- and he has repudiated his 1967 renunciation to the Prussian dynasty's legacy and is an active rival to his nephew Georg Friedrich.

For all of these reasons, it is inappropriate to list Georg Friedrich as Duke of Mecklenburg or heir thereto. It is not WP's role or function to resolve claims to defunct monarchies, or to treat potential obstacles to a particular pretender's claim as unambiguously resolved when obvious claimants and/or issues are manifest and deserve to be presented if the matter is to be delved into at all. This is especially so when the proposed claimant has put forth no public claim. This isn't like a British peerage where all that is relevant are the letters patent and the widely known laws governing inheritance of noble titles. This is an obscure area of history governed by long obsolete laws and treaties. Leave it lie.Lethiere 18:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, It seems that I stirred the debate but I do have a question: As far as I know the rullers of Mecklemburg were supposed to be Lutheran. In fact, when one of them married a Catholic and became one himself he had to renounce the claim to the Dutchy. Is that really the case? Did the religion of the Head of the House (and reigning Duke matter?) Kazimierz

[edit] Head of the Royal House of Prussia

Prince Georg Friedrich Ferdinand of Prussia, (German: Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preußen) (born June 10, 1976) is the current head of the royal house of Prussia is inconsistent. There is a King of Prussia, King Fernidad Frederick of Prussia of The House of Hohenzollern. Please check out www.houseofhohenzollern.com and get back to me? 68.111.191.29 (talk · contribs)

That's a hoax, pure and simple. Charles 01:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A quite stupid hoax, btw. "Ferdinad" ist not a name at all.217.81.59.117 23:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's "Fernidad", which is even worse. Apparently he claims to be a descendant of an imaginary older brother of Frederick William II. No explanation is given as to why nobody knew that Frederick William II had an older brother. john k 20:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you start a Plaintiffs Section then under Rulers/Monarchs? 09:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Charles 17:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The guy himself

It would seem plausible that less of the article should discuss Georg Friedrich's possibly dubious claims to the throne of Mecklenburg, and should perhaps try to discuss more about him, personally. I recall a big Vanity Fair (I think) article a few years ago on the various deposed royal houses of Europe that had a profile of Georg Friedrich. That would seem like a useful source. john k 20:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have the Vanity Fair issue, I believe. I will try to find it tonight and will post back when I do. Charles 20:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I seem to recall he made a ridiculous comment suggesting that he thinks the monarchy will at some point be restored in Germany. john k 01:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

After much searching through my archives, I found it: Vanity Fair, Sept 2003 issue. It states that the Prince is Grand Master of the Order of the Black Eagle and of the Luise Order, Co-Grand Master of the Hohenzollern House Order and head of the House of Hohenzollern. The Prince was born in Bremen and "currently" (in 2003) studies business administration at the Technical University of Freiberg. He is the chairman of the Princess Kira of Prussia Foundation (which sends disadvantaged children to Hohenzollern Castle) and is interested in mountain biking, the Internet, history and hunting. The quote was, "People in Germany should start thinking about bringing back the monarchy. I am sure it will happen." The Prince was also photographed by Prince Philipp of Hesse at Sanssouci on May 29, 2003 but I doubt that the image can be included. Charles 02:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The quote, at least, seems worthy of being included. Do the Hohenzollerns still own Hohenzollern Castle? I know the Prince's great-grandfather the Crown Prince lived there in his last years. john k 10:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the castle is owned jointly by the Sigmaringen and Prussian branches. If that is indeed true, then yes, the Hohenzollerns still own it. I would assume that ownership is probably limited to HI&RH The Prince of Prussia and HSH The Prince of Hohenzollern, but I am not sure. If you post to Alt.Talk.Royalty, they may know. Re: the Vanity Fair info, I am unsure as to how to include and cite it. Charles 16:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of 'the guy himself' I noticed that nothing is said of his maritial status. Does anyone have any info on this? 66.31.78.14 (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Prince is unmarried. He was supposedly dating a princess of Isenburg a few years ago but is not longer with her. Charles 23:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] English name

The English language version of preussen.de refers to him as George Frederick instead of Georg Friedrich; should the article's title be changed thus? Olessi 03:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I think living pretenders and currently reigning kings/queens keep their own language versions of their names, ie Juan Carlos of Spain and Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples as opposed to John Charles and Victor Emmanuel. Now whether or not the king of Spain, who is more widely known by his Spanish name, will revert to John Charles after his death is yet to be seen. But I think this article can stay here. Morhange 05:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If the English version of his official site refers to him as George Frederick then I think we should as well. Charles 20:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) say "use the most common form of the name used in English". While "George Frederick" may well be used on this one single website, there are literally hundreds of scholarly English-language sources which refer to him as "Georg Friedrich". I can find nothing in the Naming conventions which would suggest that one single source (even if an "official site") should over-rule common usage. Noel S McFerran 21:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

How he is referred to in media reports would be particularly useful, I think. What type of scholarly sources are you referring to, Noel? Genealogy? john k 03:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] he looks like Wilhelm II!

woohoo

[edit] Picture

The picture attached to the article looks at least ten years old. There's a more recent one at the subject's website; is there any copyright reason it hasn't been substituted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The42ndGuy (talk • contribs) 20:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] My changes

Here are the reasons for my changes:

1. Technically, "Georg Friedrich Ferdinand Prinz von Preußen" is not a translation of "Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia". The comma here makes all the difference. "Georg Friedrich Ferdinand Prinz von Preußen" is a person, whose first name is "Georg Friedrich Ferdinand " and whose last name is "Prinz von Preußen". "Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia" is a person whose first name is "Georg Friedrich" and who is a Prince of Prussia. To indicate in German that a person is a Prince of Prussia, one would have to put a comma at the very same place as in English. That is however rarely done. In German, the object of the article is either referred to as "Prinz Georg Friedrich Ferdinand von Preußen" (wrongly, in my POV) or as "Georg Friedrich Ferdinand Prinz von Preußen" (give or take the "Ferdinand"
2. I doubt he is commonly styled "His Royal Highness The Prince of Prussia". It may be happen often, but in the majority of cases?
3. I didn't want to use sometimes twice in the same sentence and the second "is" was unneccessary, so I removed it for stylistic reasons.
4. The former wording regarding titles being part of the last name implied somehow that it was something extraordinary the German government did for people of such high importance as the object of the article. It is not. All his children will have the same last name, and if he has a daughter, who marries a "commoner", their children could still receive the last name "Prinz von Preußen". That is all "Prinz von Preußen" is, a last name like "Miller" or "Smith".

Greetings everyone, Blur4760 22:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is wrong. Females take the feminine form of the surname. He is generally referred to solely because he is a prince (or can claim to be one), which is where the title comes in. He is generally styled such only when he is styled at all. Charles 23:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong? That "Prinz von Preußen" is his last name? Or that the German translation of "Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia" is not "Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preußen" but rather "Georg Friedrich, Prinz von Preußen". The first is a consequence of the "Preußische Gesetz über die Aufhebung der Standesvorrechte des Adels und die Auflösung des Hausvermögens" (My translation would be"Prussian Act regarding the abolishment of noble privilige and the dissolution of the royal estate"). While I don't find that law on the net for easy reference, I can point you to a law of the Free State of Schaumburg-Lippe, which is virtually the same; see here. Look at § 4. That a woman would take the feminine form is just a courtesy of the civil registry, but that doesn't change the letter of the law that former titles are only part of the legal last name. Regarding the fact that a title would need to be either in front of the name or beseperated by comma from the rest of the name, I hope you can trust me with that as a German native speaker. Blur4760 23:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I add Art. 109 WRV of the Weimar Constitution to the mix: "Adelsbezeichnungen gelten nur als Teil des Namens und dürfen nicht mehr verliehen werden." is quite clear language. Blur4760 23:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other possible candidate

Doesn't Princess Marie Cécile of Prussia count as the heir to the German throne? Brutannica 00:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the succession law is Salic. All the males in the House of Prussia must be exhausted and then females may possibly inherit. Charles 01:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last Name

Why is his last name Prinz von Pruben (Prince of Prussia) when he is head of the Hohenzollern family. Shouldn't his last name be von Hohenzollern. For example, the pretender to Austria is called Otto von Habsburg, not Otto, Prince of Austria and Hungary. Emperor001 22:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

His last name is not Prinz von Pruben, it is Prinz von Preussen (or Prinz von Preußen in Germany). Otto von Habsburg is called such because he has adopted Habsburg as his surname. That is his choice. George Frederick simply uses his title as a surname because that is just what the trend (and law) was, that titles became surnames. None of these families had a surname prior to WWI so they could choose either their title or their house name to use if they really wanted. Charles 18:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regnal name claimed

Recently an editor has added that the regnal name claimed by or on behalf of Georg Friedrich is "Friedrich IV". I can find no published source for this information. It appears to me to violate the Wikipedia:No original research official policy. Noel S McFerran 13:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Line of Succession

This article claims that Georg Friedrich is 150, but the actual article says that he's 151, which one should be changed? Emperor001 (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove it. Per the discussion at the line of succession's talk page, articles should have the numbers moved when edited, because it doesn't make sense to edit hundreds of articles on the basis of a person's birth, death or conversion to Catholicism. Charles 21:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)