Talk:Almanach de Gotha

message: is not listed in any reference works like Alamanch de Gotha or Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels. Like L.Smithfield says he has certainly has a real talent for these websites. And too much time on his hands.... - dwc lr (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Being listed or not in the aforementioned books in its self does not mean the person in question is a fake, as the Almanach de Gotha was out of print, from 1944 until 1999 when it was re-printed under a private initiative, being then printed again by Mr Kennedy, who was last seen on a boat to Montenegro with HRH Crown Prince Nicholas, then it became out of print again in 2004 and is now possibly defunct again since 2006, the trouble with Almanach de Gotha, is that it was famous for not including many legitimate persons of noble birth, on the basis that it could, so this book was not always reliable with its given reference, Emperor Napoleon and his family were denied listing for many years, as well as King Zog I of Albania and various other persons of Rank and Title, were not included, so we can therefore discount that option, whereas concerning the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels which was set up in 1951 to try and be the successor to the Almanach de Gotha, has made many reference mistakes in the past, whereas a lot of royal records and archives were burnt in the various bombing raids during the second world war and other documents burnt or stolen by the Red Army, so complete reference can not be totally verified always, but being listed in this book would of course hold same verification of holding, bearing and enjoying such noble rank bearing in mind this book like the other is still an unofficial book holding no formal connections to the german government or authorities therein, I would be most interested to know, how, why, and on what stand point the aforesaid karl has made his claim, not just seeing people rubbish someone for their own given agenda without any official, statement made by the authorities in germany, or anywhere else, it is nice that mr smithfield has friends to counter any questions or requests made by others, but both Mr Smithfield and DWC IR, have not verified any official proofs of statments by the German Government or Authorities or in fact any other official bodies therein, the aforesaid Karl may hold or not hold rights, but it is for you to show proofs to verify and confirm your own given accusations, about the aforementioned person, you seem to have run out of proofs. more thoughts for reading about this so called talk page having a discussion on a subject, that is not about the page in question a bit silly Mr Smithfield.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.94.40 (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: “Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland”

message: (I forget why :P), and this isn't the first time the subject of Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland has been raised. As someone who doesn't know a great deal about how this nobility stuff works, I'd be interested to know (from both sides) about his title and its legal standing in Germany and elsewhere, as well as if he is who he says he is, and/or who the person he says he is actually is? If there is any doubt about the reliability of this person, then we should be making doubly sure before including any links etc... Miremare 14:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: I've had this page on my watchlist for a couple of years now

message: someone who thinks that this Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland is for real should start a biographical article on him right here on Wikipedia.  Let a greater audience evaluate the claim of this so-called prince of Germany.  I know that this person is a fake through and through so any article that I would write on this person would say so right up front.  This person is totally fake and everyone in the real world knows it.  Pretending that this person is for real is like pretending that Mickey Mouse is the recently lost king of Germany.  Everyone knows the history of both Germany and the Holy Roman Empire and this fake person is simply not a part of it!  But maybe someone who does think that this person is for real should write a Wiki article on him.  Then a larger audience can all have a good laugh at this fraud character rather than just the few of us who are writing on this talk-page. --L.Smithfield (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A man that makes some sense at last, I agree with Miremore adding links based on supposition and accusations, through adding links and listing web boards, is as baseless as claiming rights to which one does not hold, bear or enjoy, therefore it is for Mr Smithfield as the one that has made these suppositions, to legally show official statements of facts based upon judgments of the governments and authorities of the Countries concerned before holding, bearing or enjoying any sort of solid legal argument based upon the aforementioned accusations declared by Mr Smithfield thereon, namely that Karl is impersonating a person that actual exists in Germany today, please tell us all! namely the full name and title of the person that you think Karl is impersonating, whereas, i would totally disagree on your given assumption that the whole world thinks he's a fake, the world has not heard of him like most members of the would be or could titled nobility, most people are not interested who they are or what they do, this is not the 19th century Mr smithfield, there you go again making vast personal assumptions where by your including the whole world on the side of your own given views and accusations you are one person not the whole world, and i would further disagree with your view that everyone knows history of Germany and the First Reich, quite the contrary most germans know very little about their German history especially their Imperial and Noble History and past and most don't care!, the rest of the world knows very little, apart from those who search Wikipedia for information, concerning the subject of the First Reich, there are very few books written on its near on 1000 year history, far more were written on the subjects of the second and third Reichs, so your personal assumption on this matter is flawed, im not interested in writing the piece of karl, or any other would be or could claimant to some defunct body, much more interested in writing a piece on Stalin or Lenin, but you seem to have a real problem with him why! i decided to write reply's to your accusations as you have listed the same links and comments on quite a few pages, i just dislike bullies who use and abuse this wonderful website to attack others for no better reason than it makes them feel good, wikipedia which is a champion of information on the net, is worth much more than that,  personal attacks and accusations should be left for private websites and web boards were bullying has become an art form, leave Wikipedia alone this is a site for all based on true and factual information for everyone!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.100.76 (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Maybe

message: I did not mean to suggest that this Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland is impersonating someone else, as if someone by that name already existed.  Rather I did mean to state that this person is pretending to be something that he is not.  Whoever this person is, he is not a real lost prince of either Germany or the HRE.  He just made up a completely fake name for himself.  He has no past.  He has no imperial, royal, or even noble parents.  He has no biography anywhere on the web.  This person is simply a complete fake.  He is pretending to be something that he is not.  He pretends to be the heir to the imperial throne of the HRE.  This pretension on his part is just pure fantasy.  Anyone can just make up a name and pretend to be the heir to some former kingdom, but that doesn't mean that the person is actually what he claims.  He is just pretending to be the heir to the former imperial throne of the HRE.  This person exists nowhere on the web except for within his own fantasy web sites.  Making up some fake fantasy web sites is not enough to establish that a person is the heir to a former throne of Europe.  Show me a real biography of this fake person (other than from one of his own fake web sites) and then I will acknowledge that this fake person exists. --L.Smithfield (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept your mistake, but concerning, the status and title of this person, it is for you to show, list and substantiate, your own accusations against this person, through due legal factual statement, whereas you are the one that has taken it upon yourself to attack Karl through your own given statements and it is not for me or any other person, to substantiate by writing, showing or listing anything as i have not accused any person of being a fake, the trouble with the net is that people take it upon themselves by hiding behind a computer screen to make personal attacks upon persons who maybe right or wrong, without any legal or official rights to do so, normally with out proof, this person Karl has the right to defend himself but i doubt he will, you should not use Wikipedia for this sort of thing, it is here for factual information only, and was not set up to attack people in this why, you try to justify your statement by listing only internet proofs but then attack him for having websites, both of these are from the same brush in my opinion, this does not justify your accusations. Whereas, the succession to the Throne of the First Reich was by election and not by birth right, which is the normal way that the right of succession is ruled and that the empire was never conquered or in fact legally, abolished, therefore in theory of law the empire still exists, whether we like to recognize this fact or not, it is normally said that because Francis II abdicated his throne, an act that had accured before under Charles V and that he allowed the Imperial states to give up their allegiance's to the empire, thus the aforesaid acts meant that the empire no longer exists, this view is totally and legally wrong their is no legal document or documents that exist anywhere in Europe or in fact anywhere else to substantiate this claim made by lots of so called experts on the subject, the truth is that the First Reich still exists in a clear legal dormant state, and further because the Principality of Lichtenstein, still exists and never formally relinquished its allegiances in any form to the empire it might be said correctly in factual law that the first Reich actually exists in a legal de facto state ie in the presence and existence of the Principality of Lichtenstein, which to this day has actually given formal recognitions to a number of dormant titles of the First Reich to petitioners thereon, so there is case that the first Reich does exists in a dormant or de facto state, concerning any claims to the throne a would be candidate would have to be elected by a group Electors as stated under the imperial laws pertaining to the empire, but there are many problems, first in most cases the election rights and offices belonged to the state or office, not the person or house, and the majority of the states and offices no longer exist, so that would be a major obstacle in claiming the Imperial Title of Emperor, but sorry to say there is nothing in law from a man assuming in any Title or office, if no one person will counter claim that assumption, ie HIRH Otto Von Hapsburg, or HIRH George Friedrich of Prussia, so to say someone is a fake because they claim a long dormant or defunct Title or Office, holds no legal judgment, unless they assume a real persons identity thus commenting fraud and fake impersonation ie as you stated by mistake in your posting last but one, in history nothing is cut and dry or black and white, individuals have assumed many such Sovereign titles and offices rightly or wrongly, over the years, this person maybe or may not be another one to add to the list, in the time of the Emperor Napoleon who was the most famous person in history to assume and usurp titles and offices which was not his to assume by law, but of course no one would say he was a fake, the difference was he had a large army to defend his claims, the emperor was not recognized by most of the Imperial and royal Houses of Europe, they looked upon him a little upstart, and even to this day some Imperial and royal houses and families in Europe still do not recognize him and his family, or his titles and claims thereon, and what about King Zog I, or in fact the Shar of Iran, and the house of Pahlavi, both usurpers i could go on but i will not, but they are some of the examples of people who in terms of claims were just common famous usurpers holding no legal right to assume these ranks but they did, through force. Whereas, Royalty and nobility are not borne with blue blood and they do not have any birth rights to any Titles or offices, they assume these ranks and titles, in different ways some legal, some not, but in most cases, through illegal ways by the act of force or by murder, to many individuals like to paint history in an almost dream like state which it is not, sorry, we are all borne equal and die equal, this we can be shaw of.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.100.76 (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: I apologize.

message: [ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/the-holy-roman-emperor-is-alive-and-well-and-living-in-teddington-743014.html]. The “Emperor’s” mother says they are “completely sane”, well if you say so do dear!!. - dwc lr (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi dwc thanks for your input, another web link to add to the large and growing list, created by mr smithfield, you were the one left out I suppose, but at least you have been bothered to actually show something of interest to all, unlike the others listed here, so congratulations on this, but as these newspaper articles has been on the web since at least the year 2000 nearly a decade ago, it is not a new finding by any means and of course whether we all think it is a funny article or not, it does of course make a valid point that this person has claimed a legally dormant title as shown and for what we can see he has not impersonated any living or dead person, or in fact assumed an existing title held by any Imperial or royal house, so a funny story that actually supports his unusual claim and he actually exists as far as the article states so he is nether a fake or a fraud, so on this account he has not commented fraud by the act of impersonation and further no court papers or proceedings have been lodged, up to this point as far as we know, so unless you can show official court proceedings, to add to this discussion board, instead of adding old stories and web links, which do not warrant being called official proof and by the way the independent newspaper and the guardian are probably the most anti monarchist papers in the uk a good point to note, so any write ups can be taken with a pinch of salt, these papers have always rubbished British aristocratic's and the royal family, what we can also say is he has claimed a title, to which you and others do not recognize which of course is your right to do, but just calling him names does not hold truth by legal statement, we should also note there is a growing republican movement in Britain thank goodness, with at least a few million people not recognizing the queens right to rule but of course we would not say she was not the queen would we, so formal recognition is not 9 tenths of the law! so take my advise if you think he is a fake and a fraud just simply post an actual legal court judgment that has been lodged by an official authority or government body, concerning his claim and let us all see the proof, if you carry on like others and keep adding to the list of links you are showing a totally lack of proof with an inexpert source of knowledge and information therein! whereas, karl must think he is very important, that you all make such an issue and fuss out of his claim of 1999, quite funny i think !!!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.128.42 (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting article. You "don't sell" titles, you "give them away for a gift". Does this guy know that the electoral college consisted of different people than him and his mother? And the title "King of Germany/Rome" was given to the elected and crowned, well, King of Germany. The Emperordom was given by the Pope, not the electoral college. He should also make up his mid if he wants to be Prince of Germany or of the Holy Roman Empire. There's a difference.Nevertheless, this adresses my initial question. The almanachdegotha website exists for the purpose of legitimating this person's claim to a nonexistent title for an (of course!) officially abolished Empire (with the abdication of Emperor Francis), as well as his title-sellinggiving-away-for-gifts enterprise. I ask him to include my own title as His Imperial and Caesarian Highness, Augustus and Prince of the Roman Empire, East AND West. There, now who's got the bigger one?! And don't you dare to throw laws into my face! In my empire, I MAKE the laws! Well, you know the procedure yourself, of course. -- megA (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear... is it really him in that article? A bloke from south London who's decided that he's Holy Roman Emperor because nobody else is? How disappointing... :( Miremare 21:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Here are some articles

message: just blame our two inexpert friends, for your stated disappointment, who first started this quite ridiculous discussion board, being MegA and mr smithfield, who both seem to have a real problem with this character karl, mr smithfeild in particular who has put more of the aforementioned links on Wikipedia in the discussion pages than anyone else it seems, hardly the why you would ignore a so called lunatic, (sorry borrowed your word yopie).
: from the "Almanach de Holy Roman Empire" site: The Seat of the Imperial Order is in London, at the residence of H.I.&.R.H. Prince Karl Friedrich von Deutschland, de jure Emperor Charles VIII of Germany, Hereditary Sovereign Chancellor and Grand Master of the Imperial Order. Not only claimant, he IS the emperor of Germany (not the HRE, mind you!). I think someone should tell Horst Köhler, Mrs. Merkel and the German Federal Diet that the German constitution has been abolished by a (then) 25-year-old and his mother! (By the way, he is also "Hochmiester" (sic!) of the Teutonic Order, reinstalled by decree of (guess who)... the Holy Roman Emperor...) -- megA (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: MegA your response is so predictably it is quite ridiculous and you talk about this chap having a problem, one has already flown over the cuckoo's nest namely yourself, getting all your information mix up, and as usually most of it wrong in your case, so how does it feel to, still not understand the basic principals and law of the holy roman empire, concerning the abdication of frances II and just about everything else besides!, being proved wrong on nearly every point, and yes the Hapsburg emperor Frederick III was elected in 1415 right!!!!!!! no he was born in 1415 and elected in 1440, silly boy!!!!!! and the title of emperor of Austria was successor to the title of holy roman emperor, right!!!!!!! no once again wrong, but your errors are to many to add on here, but wait we have new words to add to your list, like emperordom!!!! someone has been playing to many computer games me thinks! some advise for you MegA I would go back to school and read lots of books on the subject of history and then learn the basic understanding of the English language, because it does not seem to be your first language, does it, talking about the emperors mother, does your mother know that you are up and awake, after 9pm, talking to strangers on the net!!!! go on tell us all some more inexpert sources of knowledge and information you are so good at it!! and thank you MegA for the information and history of the title of holy roman emperor, which was given by the Pope, i never knew this wow!!!! you are a very clever boy, and i like your further listed information which you added and of course it is wrong again naughty naughty!!! on the title of King of Rome this was never used by holy roman emperors or their heirs, this is wrong because this title has only every been used 8 times, 7 times by the ancient kings of Rome and once by emperor Napoleon, for his son and heir being known as the king of Rome, to of course mirror the correct title which was used by the holy roman emperor for his heir which was the King of the Romans, there is a big difference in the term and usage of the aforementioned, Title and style, MegA, silly boy!!! and furthermore i stated that the aforementioned title was elected, so i now can assume you do not even understand the question to answer principle do you!!!! go on tell us more about your ongoing so called INVESTIGATION on karl, what a internet searching expert you are!!, what other information have you found out, wait every body he's going to say something clever!!! oops what about something official i will say it again official do you understand the word or in fact the meaning my small friend, please show us all first proof that this website as named by yourself is owned  and run by karl, that would be a start, then you can add an actual legal court judgment that has been lodged by an official authority or government body, concerning his claim, there we go a task for a very important boy your mother will be very pleased indeed! night night x  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.128.42 (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Tsk, tsk. Ad hominems instead of argumentation. A more "noble" demeanor would suit Your Highness well, Charlie. But it's a lost art. Oh well, as Pratchett wrote: "Multiple exclamation marks - a sure sign of a diseased mind." Ta-ta,HIH, megA, Galactic Imperator (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well MegA your mind has gone again wondering through the depths of ridiculous accusations, hinted only by notes of nothingness, whilst quoting irrelevant authors of fantasy novels, which I suppose is quite relevant in your case being a man of little words and substance with a true lack of reality based upon your mind which holds little signs of notable existence, whereas, let us not forget an ability to make up words that do not exist in the English language, it should be also noted that those who include Latin words within the spectrum of their English written verse show to all that they hold little understanding of either, whereas I still see you have not been able to answer any questions or show official proofs, never mind its become a tradition of yours anyway and further I see your still signing yourself as 'HIH MegA Galactic Imperator' one of your many fake titles which you have assumed, some more advise, when man runs out of proof he uses Latin quotes and authors in order to substantiate his own lack of proof or in fact his own relevance!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.22.5 (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Please miremare, man of reason, the only one on here, i may add,

message: Here's something I've been wondering for a while: this page seems to contain more criticism towards mediatized German houses than actually explain what the Gotha was all about. There is not even a mention of the statistic part of the Almanach (more than half of its pages and ever increasing), which worked as a sort of "International Blue Book", was widely used and generally respected for its accuracy and wealth of information. While criticism should have its place on this page, one gets almost the impression that Justus Perthes cooked up a German conspiracy to promote families to higher status, rather than, say, the Congress of Vienna and the Federal Diet.
Also there seems to be a number of errors and/or misleading statements. For example: "The Gotha's condescending attitude towards Eastern European nobility and royalty, and towards Iberian, Spanish, British, Italian, and Scandinavian highest nobility, led to the proliferation of German mediatized princesses in the royal houses of Europe, as their value in the marriage market had been artificially enhanced by this work's rankings. Another consequence was the yet ongoing Romanov succession dispute, as Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, a claimant to the headship of the Russian Imperial Family,[6] has a Romanov father and Bagrationi mother, a morganaut according to the Gotha standards; the entire Russian male dynastic descent went extinct when applying its standards."
1) Before WWI, none too many marriages between mediatized houses and royal families seem to have occurred; none in Britain, none in France (although a Princesse d'Orléans married a Prince Czartoryski of the family long in Gotha); one in the Netherlands (Princess Marie married the Prince of Wied); none in Belgium (unless we deem the Princes of Hohenzollern being mediatized after they ceded their sovereignty to Prussia in 1849). Perhaps the writer confuses the sovereign German houses (Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Waldeck and Pyrmont, Anhalt, Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt etc.) with mediatized? The sovereign families married to the royal families of many greater powers, but sovereignty is equal to countries both great and small. Indeed, such families as Schaumburg-Lippe, Reuss, Liechtenstein and Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen appear to have found much finer spouses after 1815 than they did in the two centuries before, while the Thurn und Taxis and Isenburg families seem to have lost some of their earlier allure. -- But I find no evidence of "proliferation" of mediatized houses.
2) Norfolk (mentioned in the article) entered the Gotha in 1876, the same year the comital houses were upgraded; thus -- "For over a century, the second section consisted of non-sovereign princely houses from all over Europe (save many easternmost areas). Rohans, Leiningens, Ruspolis, Windisch-Graetzes, Norfolks, Lobkowiczes, Thurn and Taxises and Czartoryskis appeared together." -- is misguiding. The Thurn und Taxis was included in the Gotha from the start (before there were any section II), so were the Lobkowicz, the Leiningen entered in the 1790s, the Czartoryski during the first decade of the 1800s, the Windisch-Graetz and the Rohan in the 1810s, the Ruspoli in late 1820s. The second section was introduced in the early years of the 19th century, and families outside the traditional HRE started entering the Gotha only in the 1870s, when a preface stated that the Almanach strove to be more intenational in its scope. After that time the number of Spanish, British, French and Italian houses increased steadily (as long as they sent in the information). -- The sad fact that Scandinavian monarchs seem to have created few to none princely, let alone ducal houses is hardly condescension towards Swedish or Danish nobility (counts at best).
3) I don't think the editors of Gotha set the standards on the Russian succession dispute; surely that is a matter of the Romanov house law. The Almanachs from the 1920s and 1930s seem to contain a hint of desperation with the Russians when trying to get all the titles correctly, but I doubt whether they (the editors) decided who were morganauts and who weren't. As to the house of Bagrationi, no one questions its high status and antiquity, but a few points should be made here: whether Transcaucasian states are in Europe or not, is a matter of some dispute; secondly, while Gotha listed in section one those houses who had lost their thrones after the beginning of the 19th century, they must have meant "after the Congress of Vienna," because, if the thought is followed to its logical conclusion, most of the mediatized princely houses of Germany would have entered section I (indeed, the principalities of Isenburg and Leyen were mediatized as late as 1815); thirdly, after the annexation of Georgia the Russian Emperors treated the Bagrationi as Russian princes and not as sovereigns. Moreover, the Bagrationi never sent their information to the Gotha.
Quote: "This division was considered of great social significance in the Holy Roman Empire and its successor states; nobles from the second section were considered legally equal to German royals appearing in the first section (at least with those royals whose houses actually were ducal or less before the Napoleonic period; of the truly older kingdoms, Prussia declined to recognize a countess Harrach, mediatized, from section two, to marry its king in better than morganatic terms)"
4) Only Prussia and Austria were higher than ducal before Napoleonic times. The Electors were of course of a royal rank, but their family members were usually dukes (or counts palatine).
5) King Friedrich Wilhelm III of Prussia was very rash in marrying Countess Auguste of Harrach before her family was included in the Gotha! (The first mediatized counts were included 1824, but not Harrach.) I'm joking, but once again, the Gotha didn't invent mediatization, which was a complicated affair anyway and should perhaps be linked as "See also:" The main reason for the second upgrade of the counts was probably due to the fact that few were remaining, as many of them had been promoted to princely rank before 1890, and the editors also liked to show the family connections of the different branches (such as the Leiningen, the Fugger and the Solms, having both princely and comital mediatized branches).
To sum up, these particular criticisms aside, I'd like this article to be more descriptive of the Gotha (including the Annuaire diplomatique-statistique) and less of a condemnation of mediatization and ultimately, of Gotha being a book made by Germans in Germany -- there seems to be an underlying anti-Teutonic tone in the article (oh, I'm not German).
And as an aside to the raging discussion, I'm surprised that no one's noted that this so-called "Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland" has pinched the contents of his genealogical pages from Paul Theroff's Online Gotha (a very good source for presents goings-on in princely houses, mediatized or not).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.166.7.128 (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank god! for actual discussion content being talked about on this discussion board at last, which holds connection to the page in question, I would agree with everything you say about the quite anti-Gotha and anti-German content within the topic page of the Gotha, but would disagree about your assumption of the identity of the owner of the site in question as up to now no one has actually proofed who is the site owner, so i would keep an open mind on this question, just because websites look the same does not proof anything, as people do use the same site templates, only data on ownership may verify this question any thing else is just hearsay.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.14.75 (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah well--only one comment to my suggestions as yet. I'm sorry: I should have said "whoever maintains those pages" has pinched the contents ... from Paul Theroff's Online Gotha rather than "Prinz" etc. I'm not quite sure what you meant by "data on ownership". I do not mean to be rude, but (ahem) less convoluted sentences might help the reader to understand what refers to what. Paul Theroff's website has been around for more than a decade, and I should be very surprised indeed to hear of him having anything to do with the "almanach" sites. Not that there exists such a thing as "ownership" or "copyright" of basic genealogical data (dates of birth etc.), and Mr Theroff's sources include l'Allemagne dynastique, GHdA, Gotha ancient and modern, various local annuals etc. (And a few corrections suggested by me, included after verification from other sources). As to almanachdegotha.org, it also makes free use of Wikipedia information on nobility in various countries (including the faulty spelling of "source material"). I'm also doubtful as to the legal use of images on almanachdegotha.org, but I think I've said enough already. -- However, I would very much like to see my "fair and balanced?" suggestions addressed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.166.1.203 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's a bit late, but I think your criticism makes a lot of sense.  If you have the knowledge and ability to rewrite, you should take a gander at. john k (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the disputed section and the discussion above, and decided to remove the section altogether. -Arne Saknussemm jr (talk) 08:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair and balanced? 

message: About the Almanach de Gotha on the linked site (see Article) http://www.boydellandbrewer.com/store/viewitem.asp?idproduct=13798 I read these words: "the only publication to list all the members of ALL the imperial, royal, princely and ducal houses and the counts of the Holy Roman Empire" (!!!): but isn't true because the Almanach is NOT complete: there aren't a lot (around 300+, or more) of royal, imperial, princely, or ducal families, still living, in the peerages of Russia, Italy, U.A.E., India, Thailand, Japan, China, Nigeria, ...........  that aren't listed on this publications ! 
Please remember that this info on the Boydell and Brewer's site about Almanach de Gotha isn't correct (and very far complete) --A curious reader (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong infos about Almanach de Gotha -  site http://www.boydellandbrewer.com (see Article)  

message: After God knows how many years , I have given up editing the above page and taken it off my watchlist. It is impossible to keep it NPOV, non-advertising and accurate because it's repeatedly edited by warring single purpose accounts.  Giano  08:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  exactly  Giano : unfortunately, on WP, those few who have an expertise about these subjects was also banned here, and other pages about these subject was illogically altered: this for your choice or that of choice of "your friends", that was totally undocumented on these matters (citations need, do you remember ?!). Now It's too late to complain. A simply tired genealogist  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.166.183.147 (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Almanach de Gotha]]

message: I do agree with the points made by HofKal2 in their edit summary and don’t see that there edits are unreasonable, this article should state “is” and imo it gives a fair overview of the history of the title, yes up to the present. Lots of things change hands over the years, the rights to the Burke’s Peerage titles for example have also changed hands various times it’s not been the same publisher/publishing company who has produced this series of books from day 1, it’s legally a continuation under a new publisher, this article clearly distinguishes the change of ownership. I don’t see what the problem is. - dwc lr (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The attempt to have this article show the post-1997 "Almanach de Gotha" as an editorial extension of the original Gotha has been controversial for years, as reflected here and here. Although efforts have been made since 2012 to conflate the original with the recent Gotha, despite the gap of of 54 years, those efforts encounter resistance for good reason. Justus Perthes' Almanach de Gotha, published 1785-1944, is notable, and as such has this article in English Wikipedia, only because it is *the* historical authority on ruling and ducal dynasties, and was relied upon as such by the diplomatic corps until 1944. The version that came out half-a-century later has not earned and does not have the reputation for reliability or accuracy of the original. Our article on that series should not be used to promote the post-1997 "Almanach de Gotha", which controversially obtained the legal right to the name of the publication, even though its actual archives are preserved today for public access in and by the city of Gotha itself. Of course the post-1997 "Almanach de Gotha", one of the hundreds of recent royal genealogical works, wants to piggy-back on the original to promote itself in English Wikipedia, especially now that it is, after years of non-publication, putting out a 2019 edition. But Perthes has disclaimed any editorial continuity between its pre-1945 publication and the post-1997 editions. That fact, instead of being buried in text in the article, should make it clear that the recent version lacks the notability of the original. We should not allow this article to be used as an advert for a non-notable publication. FactStraight (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately FactStraight is a user who takes the view that anything historical must have been without error, rather than realising that the historical publications of the Almanach de Gotha were littered with errors. The English language AdeG has on occassion had errors, but these are generally corrected, and the vast majority of readers (including an illustrious comité de patronage) agree with this. It doesn't really matter is Perthes has disclaimed editorial continuity, firstly, they sold the rights, so that doesn't make any sense other than to sound petulant, and secondly, the reality is that it is a continuation of the same publication and in my opinion holds to strict and high standards. If the publication was not notable, than why do the remaining royal courts of Europe still have copies of the English AdeG on their shelves? I go back to my previous point, that a change in owner does not mean something ceases to be. As the dwc lr states "it’s legally a continuation under a new publisher, this article clearly distinguishes the change of ownership".
HofKal2 (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

text: Of course the current owners will “piggyback” as you put it, but they own the Almanach de Gotha, it’s not like the “Almanach de Saxe Gotha” website which is a shameful rip off, it’s a genuine attempt at keeping the historic publication, that they own, going. When you acquire the rights to a publication you also buy the history and any prestige that comes with the name. You’ve highlighted old discussions and yes people on here and in some other quarters may have gripes with the editions or publishers , these opinions are likely to be over 20 years old and probably frozen in time. But I’ve always found the idea that the content of the post Perthes editions are so bad and unreliable that people have objected to them being cited on Wikipedia frankly absurd. Is the Almanach de Gotha less notable today than in 1944, yes perhaps. But that’s more to do with the world today, there’s less reigning houses than in 1944, aristocrats/nobles are probably less notable, so Burke’s Peerage for example is likewise not as notable as it once was. The fundamental issue for me is this: “is” the Almanach de Gotha “a directory of Europe's royalty and higher nobility...” or “was” it. Clearly it still is, just because ownership changes hands doesn’t mean things reset back to 1, merely a new chapter starts under a new owner and this article makes that clear. - dwc lr (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was or Is