Talk:Maximilian I of Mexico

message: I note that this article was recently moved from "Maximilian of Mexico" to "Maximilian I of Mexico". Could the reason please be clearly explained here? I presume it is something relevent to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)? Thanks. Wondering, -- Infrogmation 06:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is used only when the ordinal was in official use. For example, Victoria of the United Kingdom, not Victoria I of the United Kingdom; Juan Carlos I of Spain, not Juan Carlos of Spain.
Yes. Like Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia or Hussein I of Jordan or John (not John I) of England.
I proposed this policy some months ago, and there were no objections, so I changed it some months ago.  Maximilian, so far as I can gather, did take the ordinal (see , which is usually reliable).  Thus, the ordinal should be in.  john k 13:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I think in this case Wikipedia naming conventions trump the person's own preferences.  I propose to move back. PatGallacher (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: When Juárez refused to commute Maximilian's death sentence, it wasn't to send a message to the world.  The Mexican president didn't commute it because he said that Maximilian's life was out of his hands, and it was now in those of "the law and the people."  (I retrieved this from a biography of Juárez by Dennis Wepman)
--Tower Interface 12:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Political conflicts regarding the throne?  What the hell is that supposed to mean?  john k (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Maximilian's Death  

message: I think it was around 2000 or 2001, I don't remember the exact date, but Los Angeles times published a theory about Maximilian's death on it. The writter stated that Benito Juarez had actually let Maximilian go and instead the one who was shot was a look a like, according to the newspaper he left to Central America where he died in poverty, since he couldn't go back to Austria because of political conflicts regarding the trone. Do any of you know about this conspiracy?
:Political conflicts regarding the throne?  What the hell is that supposed to mean?  john k (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: This is about a theory about Maximilian's death

message: The article mentions his born name (German), but refers to him as Craig Macmillan, an English/Scottish name throughout. When and why did the name change occurr?
Zapiens 14:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When did he change his name to Craig MacMillan?

message: I have heard about that theory. From what I understand, Juarez shot a look a like and Maximilian escaped and lived for many years in El Salvador by the name of Craig Macmillan. It is said that Craig Macmillan was a tall caucasian man, who always wore white, and was constantly visited by Europeans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benval (talk • contribs) 15:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Maximilian´s death theory 

message: There is some evidence that Maximilian was actually the son of the Duke of Reichstadt, the son of the French Emperor Napoleon I, with whom his mother maintained a long relationship. Whether one believes it or not, it ought to be mentioned in the article. Tom129.93.17.139 02:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of parentage, did Maximilian I have any sons or daughters? 71.34.67.135 (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Parentage?

message: If any contributor can use it, then here is a photo of Maximilian after his death. The details are scarce, except the photo was taken quite some time after his death.
Post-mortem photo
Fred26 (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-mortem photo of Maximilian 

message: I don't get "His parentage had naturally nothing to do with his success" in that section. The only way to read it is as sarcasm. --Krokodeilaki (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Career in Austria 

message: This makes no sense. Under the reasons for why people think he could have been the son of Napoleon II, it says that he was shorter then his other siblings.Napoleon was average height for his time period.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wastedgrunt36 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short Stature 

message: Hi, everyone. I'm planning to start working on this article and take it to FA standard. However, I'm only going to do it in case there is support from all other interested editors. Suggestions, opinions, anything, is appreciated. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No one?! --Lecen (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a wonderful idea but as I don't contribute in the English Wikipedia, I won't be very useful! However, I have got two French biographies of Empress Charlotte and some other books about the Royal family of Belgium... So if I can help you in any moment, contact me (in august, because I leave for Canada next week). Good luck ! Konstantinos (82.237.218.242 (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added an entire new section the article, fully sourced. Also, I debunked this absurd claim that Maximilian was the son of Napoleon II. We can't add rumors and claim they are facts. I'll continue working on this article, albeit very slowly. --Lecen (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, the rumor appears in different biographies. I really think it is only a rumor and I never read a book which accepted it as un real possibility. But it seems that some contemporaries believed it because of the friendship of Napoleon II and Archduchess Sophie. 82.237.218.242 (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important: need opinions 

message: In the lead it reads "Maximilian was prematurely bald, although his portraits showed him with a full head of hair"... Is it just me or does this not belong in the lead? Maybe it is better to create a section "Appearance" with a decription of the Emperor's looks (abobe, there is also talk about his stature, so enough ground for this). In any case, it does not belong in the lead. Pierlot (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed is not the place for the lead. I'm goin to adress all issues in time. He started to became bald around his early 30s (like his elder brother), so, I don't believe that can be called "premature". He was very tall, not short as the article says, also. If you want to have an idea of how this article will become once I'm done with it, please, take a look at Pedro II of Brazil. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In all the images he is on, Maximilian indeed appears to be a tall and slender man. He was the same height as his brother, who towered over 5'8" (1.75m) Elizabeth of Bavaria so that would make Maximilian at least 6'1" (1.85m), quite tall for his era. As for the premature baldness - if it was hereditary and a trait he shared with his brother, father and grandfather then this is another thing that makes Napoleon II's parentage highly unlikely. Success and good luck with the article! Pierlot (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But the Duke of Reichstadt was a close relative of Maximilian's presumptive father, and himself a grandson of Franz I.  So that hardly seems like cllear evidence. john k (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

text: He was 6'2" as you can see on page 16 of [this book] written by an American who met him. Maximilian had a lot in common with his first cousin, Pedro II of Brazil. --Lecen (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I certainly notice a clear resemblance in the two men. Seems like a perfectly reliable source, too. Well found! Pierlot (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baldness & appearance 

message: Surely there should be a better picture of Maximilian? (92.7.9.176 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: No Brazilian princess is mentioned in this section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.206.41.100 (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The section, as well as everything else in the article is unfinished. In case you want to know more about the Brazilian Princess, see Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Travels and the Brazilian princess? 

message: File:Edouard Manet 022.jpg|The Execution of Emperor Maximilian (1868-69), oil on canvas, 252 x 305 cm. Kunsthalle Mannheim
File:Manet, Edouard - The Execution of Emperor Maximilian, 1867.jpg|The Execution of Emperor Maximilian (1867), oil on canvas, 195.9 x 259.7 cm. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
File:Photography of Execution of Maximilian I of Mexico, Miramón and Mejía — 1867.jpg|Photograph(?) of the execution of Maximilian (right in photograph) Miramón (center) and Mejía (left), 19 June 1867
File:Execution of maximillian mejia miramon.png|Print, 1867
File:Firing squad 1867.jpg|Photograph of the firing squad, 1867
Should this article include a reference to Manet's paintings of The Execution of Emperor Maximilian or the photograph in that article?  See above. -- 00:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No photo was taken of the execution. That's a drawing. --Lecen (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Yes, but the photo of the firing squad was not taken at the moment he was shot. About yoru earlier question? I see no problem about adding the picture and the link to Manet's painting. I started working on this article but I gave up on the third section. I doubt someone else will finish it. Good luck! --Lecen (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Since his regnal name was actually "Maximiliano I" I wondered if there would be a problem if I change the name of this article to "Maximiliano I of Mexico"? --Lecen (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad idea based on OR. all the RS have used Maximilian Rjensen (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "OR"? Okay, then. Let's leave the article as it is... which isn't good. --Lecen (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not OR, but he is universally referred to as "Maximilian" in virtually all sources in English, which is supposed to be what articles titles are based on.  I'm also not sure how rejecting a plan to change the article name to a form not used in English constitutes a preference that the article be left as it is.  john k (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Maximilian to Maximiliano I 

message: to be problematic.
:" After arriving in Trieste, the coffin was taken to Vienna and placed within the Imperial Crypt, where it can be viewed today, on 18 January 1868."
Should it read, " After arriving in Trieste on 18 January 1868, the coffin was taken to Vienna and placed within the Imperial Crypt, where it can be viewed today." ?
Further, I am uncomfortable with the use of the word, "today" because, well what day is that?  However since I am new to this article I think I'll just post this and Watch as to what, if anything, occurs. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I find this sentence 

message: 165.120.157.248 made a number of changes to make the article take a line that basically emphasize Maximilian being invited by Mexican monarchists and de-emphasize the French & Napoleon III.    Do you have any sources for this?  Not saying the current article is perfect, of course, but while it's certainly true there was an official invitation from Mexicans to Maximilian, my understanding is that it was done at the point of a bayonet - it was a puppet government.  So yes, it's technically true, but true in the same way that, say, Joseph Bonaparte became King of Spain a few decades earlier via invitation from that country's nobility.  The fact that Maximilian's government lasted only a year or so after the French left also suggests that it was basically a French government, not a particularly well-supported one from Mexicans, for better or worse.  SnowFire (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue needs to go to the sources.  What do the references say on the topics? This is not about what any of us feel about the subject. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The French had interests in Mexico, this is clear. But it's also true that the Conservartive Party in Mexico backed Maximiliano. Even members of the Liberal Parry supported him and were part of his administration. It was not a "puppet regime". --Lecen (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As always on wikipedia there is room for more than one interpretation, as long as they are properly supported. Carptrash (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial slant 

message: *Re this edit: It is not so much a matter of style (hence covered by the WP:FNNR rule: "Editors may use any section title that they choose.") as it is a matter of clarity. WP:FNNR says that two possible article-sections are "explanatory footnotes" that give information which is too detailed or awkward to be in the body of the article and "citation footnotes" that connect specific material in the article with specific sources. Usually, you can tell which is which by glancing the contents. In "Maximilian I of Mexico", "explanatory footnotes" were called "Endnotes", while "citation footnotes" were called "Footnotes". It was not clear which is which (which section contained "explanatory footnotes" and which section contained "citation footnotes"). --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Similar titles of article-sections

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Maximilian I of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140503115911/http://www.nacionalistas.org/2012/06/homenaje-los-martires-del-segundo.html to http://www.nacionalistas.org/2012/06/homenaje-los-martires-del-segundo.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Missing from the story: Did Max's captors accuse him of particular crimes, or did they just regard him as some bad guy whose execution they were anxious to justify? - knoodelhed (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What crimes was he accused of? 

message: The infobox lists Maximilian's adoptive son, Agustin de Iturbide y Green, a descendant of Emperor Agustin I as a successor to Maximilian, with a citation and the notion "disputed."  Monarchy definitively ended in Mexico following the execution of Maximilian in 1867, the second execution of a Mexican emperor after Iturbide's execution in 1824.  The descendants of Iturbide might style themselves as heirs to a Mexican monarchy, but there is no such thing other than distant memory. Liberal Army General Porfirio Diaz fought against the invading French and became President of Mexico 1876-1911.  During his presidency, he allowed a monument and a chapel to be built on the Cerro de las Campanas, where Maximilian and his two generals were executed. That would not have been possible if monarchism in Mexico were anything but a closed chapter of Mexican history. I propose removing Iturbide y Green's name as successor, removing the citation, and the tag "disputed" and replacing it with the word "none".  18:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That should be done as soon as possible. Surtsicna (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This was one of CMD007's changes back in November which were mostly for the worse and were extremely deferential to Maximilian.  I restored that bit of the infobox to what it used to say with Juarez being his successor as ruler of Mexico, but honestly, someone should probably just volunteer do a big diff of the article at the start of November vs. the current article, and pick out which of CMD007's contributions are worth keeping and which aren't.  SnowFire (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a source for that, so you can chatter about what’s for the “worse”, but it’s sourced CMD007 (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Differential? Or sourced information that happens not be be a liberal/republican American source? You can pretend Mexico’s imperial periods did not happen, but that isn’t reality. CMD007 (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The infoboxes of political leaders treat them as political leaders not as bloodlines.  If this was an infobox solely on dynastic succession, then maybe on Iturbide y Green as successor, but certainly not on the First Empire as predecessor.  And we are treating imperial periods seriously; part of that includes treating seriously the fact that they stopped in 1867, and that the Second Empire didn't exactly originate from the First.  The infobox of Max's buddy Napoleon III shows that he was succeeded by the Third Republic of France, not random Bonapartist claimants.  SnowFire (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, up until last year, Napoleon/III info box did mention the monarch/predecessor/successor, even when they weren’t consecutive. This is what I modeled it on (though now the rule is let’s not model on any precedent, let’s just abolish everything). Also, originally, I had the infobox (also with precedence) showing Emperor of Mexico (a title which wasn’t used only once) AND Head of State, which is where Juarez gladly went, as he was a head of state. It also had viceroy but a certain user gets a headache from too much info in an on-line encyclopedia. CMD007 (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Hmm.  I am a big fan of keeping Infoboxes short and to the point and avoiding ambiguity, but this particular case isn't really THAT complicated?  Can add an endnote to explain the details if required, but this really isn't that complex: he was succeeded by Juarez and the Mexican Republic.  Checking, Charles I of England does list the Cromwellian Council of State as a successor (along with Charles II, although that's a case where the monarchy really was restored eventually and Charles II did rule), so I don't think it's too weird to list the "de facto" successor in some manner.  SnowFire (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be clear to us who know more about the subject than the average person and (more importantly) who are used to the way things are done on Wikipedia, but I fear that having Juarez's name under the header "Emperor of Mexico" might confuse the casual reader. Also, it will inevitably lead to disputes about whether the predecessor shown should be Maximilian's predecessor as emperor (which, frankly, does seem logical if the header says "Emperor of Mexico"), namely Iturbide, or his predecessor as head of state, namely Juarez. On a more subjective note, I find endnotes and parenthetical explanations in infoboxes unsightly and contrary to what infoboxes should be. Surtsicna (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

text: In this bio, I would support having in the 'predecessor' & 'successor parameters, just Monarchy established, Monarchy abolished. When it deals with the changing from monarchy to republic or republic to monarchy. I don't see the reason for adding the individual names. But, I think they tend to be used for monarchs/presidents (etc), as both are heads of state. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

text: I think keeping complex history out of the info box is the best way to proceed here. He was emperor for a mere 3 years of Mexico's post-independence history, a tenure shorter than Iturbide's. Iturbide was not a royal and so did not have the kind of pedigree that monarchists would have preferred. Max did, but he was not a direct successor of Agustin de Iturbide. I think the place for discussion of the two brief reigns of the emperors of Mexico -- both of whom were shot -- should be in the article Monarchism in Mexico. Monarchy was a more obvious choice for the newly sovereign nation. Iturbide's Plan of Iguala brought Vicente Guerrero and other long-time insurgents into a coalition with royalists who saw an independent path for Mexico rather than with Spain, once the Spanish liberals came to be in charge in 1820. Monarchism was a persistent conservative idea in Mexico throughout the post-Iturbide turmoil.  When conservatives lost the Reform War to the liberals and their alternative conservative government under Zuloaga folded, they pursued the idea of a European monarch to rule Mexico. Juarez's cancellation of debt payment to foreign creditors, including one of Napoleon III's kin, was the opening for the conservatives to make their move. Maximilian seemed to be a dream candidate from their point of view. And Max was now unemployed after Franz Joseph removed him as viceroy. BTW regarding another thread of this talk page, I don't have a problem with the inclusion of Max's genealogy in the article, but there seems to be opposition. I don't consider it antiquarianism to include it. These family connections are very complicated and quite interesting, at least to me. There is evidence that Maximilian knew his royal connections to Spanish America. In other circumstances, Maximilian could have been an enlightened monarch, bringing progress.  But his liberal politics made it such that he alienated the Mexican conservatives who saw him as their man. Max did not want to be a tool of French imperialism or a puppet of Napoleon III or captive to Mexican conservatives.  That he managed to convince some moderate liberals to join his regime is perhaps a testament to their pragmatism, but some were tainted by the connection after the collapse of the monarchy. I consider it pragmatic that they became part of his regime. Although Juarez's government still existed in northern Mexico and was supported by the U.S. but without material aid until after 1865, it was entirely understandable if people thought he would be forced into exile outside of the country. Juarez believed he embodied the Mexican state, his black carriage was in essence the seat of government.  Max could have gone into exile, but  under duress from his brother Franz Joseph he had renounced his royal titles in Austria.  He would have lost all claim  to honor. A side note: I have visited the Hapsburg imperial crypt in Vienna where Max is buried. It was touching to see that he has visitors who remember him by leaving very Mexican paper flowers and other tokens of Mexico on his tomb.Amuseclio (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am ok enough with how the infobox currently presents the information on his reign and the Juarez government. Amuseclio (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successor as monarch - none  

message: Maximilian's manner of death -- execution by firing squad -- should be included. I did, in fact, try to do that and it appears in the edit history, but does not appear eveb in the preview.  I don't know why.  I used the template from the infobox for Alvaro Obregon, who was assassinated in 1928 and the infobox category is "manner of death."  If someone can fix this, I hope they do. I edited the place of death to substitute Restored Republic for the listing of Second Mexican Empire. The emperor was executed after capture and trial by the Mexican Republic, so saying the Cerro de la Campana was a place in the Second Mexican Empire is inaccurate. Amuseclio (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Infobox royalty does not support the death_cause parameter. Surtsicna (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: TIL. Thanx.Amuseclio (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

text: I included the death cause, feel free to revert. Torimem (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks rather odd at the bottom, I feel. Also cause of death is not otherwise given in the infobox for monarchs, so I am not sure this one needs it. Does it? Surtsicna (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Cause of death, should be excluded from infobox. Note, we don't use assassination in the infoboxes of monarchs, for example. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox - death 

message: I have added a  tag to the article. MOS:LEAD says: "The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long. The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell..." (emphasis mine). The current lead of this article is longer than many (if not most) WP articles, and goes into far too much detail. It is not readable in a few minutes. For comparison, the leads of the featured articles on the front page for the last ten days have an average length of 370 words; this one has 860 words, almost two and a half times the length. Somebody with knowledge of the topic needs to prune it down drastically. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:5518:16AD:6F52:109A (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead too long 

message: This article uniformly calls its subject by the German or English form of his name, Maximilian, and not the Spanish form, Maximiliano.  However, it (almost) uniformly calls his wife by the Spanish form of her name, Carlota, and not the English/French form, Charlotte.  It seems they should either both be Spanish (at least once they became Emperor and Empress of Mexico) or both not, for consistency's sake. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Form of names