Talk:Franz von Bayern

message: 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)
thread_title:  misleading and imaginary claim to Cyprus and Jerusalem 

message: 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)
thread_title: Image description

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

message: If the man makes no such claim, is he not a pretender?</br>ThisMunkey (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "pretender, n. : One who sets forth a claim, especially a claimant to a throne."  - No, as he has not set forth a claim I don't suppose that he is a pretender. RayBarker (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does but not 

message: Can anyone clarify when his parents marriage was recognised as dynastic, Les Maisons Impériales et Royales d'Europe says 18 May 1949, Les maisons royales et souveraines d'Europe says 1945. - dwc lr (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing happened in 1945; the war was just ending.  May 18, 1949 was the eightieth birthday of Franz's grandfather Rupprecht; it is on this occasion that Franz appeared on the balcony at Schloss Nymphenburg. Noel S McFerran (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Crown Prince Ruprecht declared the marriage of his son Albrecht to be dynastic on 18 May 1949. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parents marriage 

message: Hello,
can anyone tell me if I am right if I suggest that he could theoretically claim the trone of Navarre and if so why  does this claim not appear ? I sincerely do not know if I am right, however, what I know is that, unlike the French trone, the trone of Navarre was inherited by women. King Henry III of Navarre (Henri IV of France) received it from his mother Jonana II de Labrit (French "Jeanne d'Albret", Queen of Navarre). In 1620 Navarre (the title only, since the main part of the territory was taken by Aragon's army and then ocupied by Spain untill today) was integrated within the French Kingdom. However this does not change the rule that women inherit and rule in the Navarre Kingdom. 
The first borns within the Bourbon-Navarre house after Henry IV are Louis XIII, Louis XIV and Louis XV ; however, Louis XV first born child was Princess Louise-Élisabeth of France and the Duke of Bavaria is her first born descendent. Is that right ?
If you happen to have the answer, please respond to my occitan page.
oc:Utilizaire:Lembeye
:No. Navarre operated by male-preference primogeniture, so that a daughter would only inherit if she had no brothers. See List of Navarrese monarchs, which suggests the current heir is Princess Alicia of Bourbon-Parma. Choess (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heir of Navarre ? 

message: Why should he be styled Francis II if he were King of Great Britain, Ireland & France ?
There has never been a Francis I in Great Britain & Ireland, hence he could be Francis I.
And there has been a Francis II in France already, so if he were King of France he would be Francis III.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.108.198.80 (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There WAS a de jure King Francis I, from 1840 to 1875!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.209 (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

text: To put that less obscurely: if Franz of Bavaria were king of England etc, he'd be "II" because this other Francis preceded him as Jacobite heir. —Tamfang (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obscurely?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.209 (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about "obliquely"? —Tamfang (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Francis II ?

message: Hopefully someone can find some reliable sources. This was a link  but not used as a source, but see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 82#Jacobite publications and organisations. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with this one:  Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Or what's wrong with the Telegraph article which is already listed in the Bibliography: "Without the Act, Franz Herzog von Bayern, the current Duke of Bavaria, would be the rightful heir to the British Crown under the Stuart line." Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Then add them as inline citations. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuart claim 

message: One of the links at the end of the article is LGBT Royaly, and he is in the lst of LGBT Royalty here, but a word search found nothing about it in the article.  Shouldn't ther be some mention at least, or a citation?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.238.203 (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In case of royalty (and some other cases), people seem to remember their traditional rumours otherwise long abandoned. There certainly used to be a tradition to rumour that a man was "you-know-what" when he was no priest and just did not and did not seem to get married. (The same was not said about women, who only got the rather disparaging title of "old maid".) The Duke is not often called homosexual, and if he is sometimes, that would not have any basis in substantial fact other than that, yes, he is not married. And no, that should not be mentioned nor should he be so listed.--217.251.70.221 (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Sunday, June 13, 2021. New Pictures of Duke Franz of Bavaria. Dr. Thomas Greinwald and Duke Franz of Bavaria with their dachshund. Photo credit: Erwin Olaf. We are happy to share two pictures of Duke Franz of Bavaria, Head of the Royal House. In the first photograph, Duke Franz is shown with his longtime partner Dr. Thomas Greinwald and their daschund." Better source needed though. cagliost (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That’s not a source that can be used at all per WP:BLOG. DeCausa (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Let's say it's an open secret... Here a picture of Franz, his partner Thomas Greinwald and his nephew (and dynastic heir) Prince Ludwig at the wedding of Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia:  Equord (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question: LGBT Royalty ? 

message: I don't think it is accurate or neutral to refer to this person as "Franz, Duke of Bavaria". The German WP calls him "Franz von Bayern", this article should be called "Franz of Bavaria'. He is not a Duke. Definitely there should not be that comma in the title of this article "Franz, Duke of Bavaria", if his name is used that way it should be "Franz Duke of Bavaria", peoples' names don't have commas in them but I think he should not be called a "Duke" at all, it is misleading, not everyone is going to read the whole article and realise that it is not a title but the way members of old aristocratic families are allowed to legally change their names. And the section "Titles and styles" should be deleted, he does not have any titles or styles any more than your dentist or the cleaning lady, they were all abolished, everyone would have some abolished title if we went back far enough. Look at the German article, it does not list his "styles and titles", in fact it says "Der Titel „Herzog von Bayern, Franken und in Schwaben, Pfalzgraf bei Rhein“[5] wird noch traditionell verwendet, entspricht jedoch nicht dem amtlichen Namen. Das dem Namen vorangestellte Prädikat „Königliche Hoheit (K.H.)“ bzw. „Seine Königliche Hoheit (S.K.H.)“ wird ebenfalls noch im gesellschaftlichen Umfeld verwendet, ist jedoch ebenso eine reine Höflichkeitsform ohne rechtliche Relevanz"
which more or less means "people call him "royal highness" to his face just to be nice but it has no meaning". Also the German article does not have a box with "Bavarian Royal Family", there is not a Bavarian Royal Family and has not been one for nearly a hundred years. All of this is just snobs' fantasy, why in the world is the English WP perpetuating an idea that there are still Germans with royal titles more than the German WP? It would be in line with WP policy if I were to be bold, move the article to "Franz of Bavaria", delete all that piffle about living German people who are royal highnesses, but for right now I will just tag the article and wait a few days to see if there are any comments.Smeat75 (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we should do that. Even though David Bagration of Mukhrani used royal titles in the article until I removed them, it makes it clear that he is a pretender and doesn't use his title as the article title. Dougweller (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious problems with this article and use of non-existent titles 

message: The tags I put on this article because of the name have been restored by an admin but I also strongly dispute that infobox labelled "Bavarian royal family" (there is no such thing) with a list of phoney royal and serene and imperial highnesses (all those titles were abolished in 1919). I changed the template to "House of Wittelsbach" and took out all the false honorific prefixes, it was reverted, I tagged the template itself, the tag was taken out because it "makes a mess" and I was being disruptive. So I am going to tag every article that infobox with its list of what seem to me falsehoods appears in as disputed for accuracy and neutrality.Smeat75 (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you improving the encyclopedia, or just making a point?  --Coemgenus (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Of course there's such a thing as the Bavarian royal family. Just because a country decides to become a republic does not mean the royal family ceases to exist. That's revisionism. Neither are the titles "phoney" or "false" just because the republic decided to abolish them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is a House of Wittelsbach but the living members of it are not royal therefore there is no "Bavarian royal family". And when the titles were abolished that means they do not exist anymore, you could call your cat "His Imperial and Royal Majesty the Duke of Saxe-whatever" but it wouldn't mean anything and neither does it in those cases, it is misleading and false information, they have no titles, and they are not royal.Smeat75 (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: RE:point- the guideline says " As a rule, someone engaging in "POINTy" behavior is making edits which s/he does not really agree with, for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition" which does not apply here as I certainly do agree with the edits I am making.Smeat75 (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Not legally existing any more is not the same thing as not existing any more. The titles clearly do exist and clearly are used and the Wittelsbachs clearly are still regarded as a royal family by many. They didn't cease to be royal because of a government decree, any more than the history of Russia changed because the Communist government produced revisionist textbooks. It is Wikipedia's job to report the truth, not the truth as the German government (or any other government) has decreed it to be. These are not people randomly giving themselves spurious, made-up titles; these are a family continuing to use the titles they have always used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing I would ask about is the use of the HRH, etc., honorifics. Are these really used socially, even today? If not, I'd prefer to see them removed from the box. Choess (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's like everything -it depends on the occasion. Official engagements do, the media tend to. On an one to one level, I guess it comes down to personal choice. The president of the Duke's administration, Baron Bechtolsheim, referred to him in the British media as "His Royal Majesty", rather than HRH, but that appears to me to be more of bad translation/grammar by someone who's not a native English speaker, than anything else.--Rushton2010 (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Necrothesp says above "Not legally existing any more is not the same thing as not existing any more. The titles clearly do exist" - Noble Privilege by M L Bush, Manchester University Press, 1983  "the abolition of titles coincided simply with the removal of the monarchy...The fall of the Habsburgs...and their replacement by republican governments...directly caused the elimination of noble titles in Germany". These kinds of discussions quickly devolve into mind-boggling arcane quibbling about minutiae, really it is very simple, here is a WP:RS from a university press, those titles were abolished, they were eliminated.That author in that book from a university press does not make any distinction between "legally" existing and some other kind of existing, the titles exist in the fantasies of various pretenders and people or entities which for whatever reason play along with that pretense, that's all there is to it.Necrothesp also says "It is Wikipedia's job to report the truth, not the truth as the German government (or any other government) has decreed it to be" - Encyclopedia of Politics, Volume 2 "In Germany, titles of royalty existed from early Medieval times until they were abolished when the region became a republic in 1918. After 1918, members of the former nobility were permitted to use titles only as part of a name." It is WP's job not to report the truth but to summarise what WP:RS reliable sources say. Here's another one:  from Royals and the Reich: The Princes von Hessen in Nazi Germany by Jonathan Petropoulos,Professor of European History at Claremont McKenna College: "aristocratic titles were abolished during the Weimar Republic after the fall of the monarchy. As of 1919 aristocratic titles were merged into the individual's name. Therefore the Prince of Bavaria or the Prince of Baden actually was not a title but a name....(a member of an ex-royal family noted)'actually most people today confuse the name with a title. They also use expressions like "Royal Highness","Highness" and "Serene Highness" (Durchlaucht) and forget that we live in a republic.'" It doesn't matter if individuals or publications are "confused" enough to use phony honorifics, WP has no business adding to the confusion. Those honorifics in that box are out and out false, none of those people are any kind of "Highness", I have referenced three reliable sources that say plainly that all that was abolished nearly a hundred years ago, I could find three hundred more. I put accuracy and neutrality disputed tags on this article, they were removed, an admin put them back on, they have been taken off again, I am putting them back. I strongly, vehemently dispute that box falsely informing WP readers that there is such a thing as a current Bavarian royal family composed of a number of varieties of "Highnesses".Smeat75 (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You really have no intention of grasping what WP:Common name means. Surtsicna (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything on that page about use of honorifics on abolished royal titles. Have you read WP:RS? How about WP:V? What could be plainer than the three reliable sources I cited saying that these titles were abolished? I object to those tags being removed and just being told "your sources don't matter and neither does anything you say, there is no dispute".Smeat75 (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This man is referred to as Duke Franz in reliable English language sources. Queen Latifah and Emperor Norton are known as such in reliable English language sources. It doesn't matter that you don't consider Franz to be a duke, or that nobody considers Queen Latifah and Emperor Norton a queen and an emperor. The only thing that matters is that they are referred to as such in reliable English language sources. That is what WP:UCN, WP:RS and WP:V say. Citing an obscure 100-year-old national law and interpreting it as a reason to invent a new name for this man is the worst form of original research: synthesis. Surtsicna (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

text: And Queen Latifah is not a queen. If people nevertheless referred to her as "Her Majesty", Wikipedia would have mentioned that. It's that simple. Surtsicna (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

text: "Imperial Majesty" is in the first line of the lead in Emperor Norton. Choess (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "the self-proclaimed Imperial Majesty", it says, which is highly unlikely to confuse anyone, going on to point out that "some considered him insane, or eccentric". I was confused myself over this issue for years, I knew a little about royalty and that those "HRH" abbreviations were the mark of royalty, when I saw them in from of German titles I thought it meant those people really had actual titles, it is only when I researched it that I found out that it is a mere gesture of courtesy, WP articles should not add to this confusion (noted above in one of the sources I cited).Smeat75 (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is a mere gesture of courtesy! All forms of address are mere gestures of courtesy. Do you really think that anyone is legally entitled to be known as Mr/Ms/Miss/Mrs? Do you really think that the Bishop of Rome has a legal right to be addressed as "Your Holliness"? Of course not. You are making a problem out of nothing. It is not Wikipedia's job to tilt at windmills. Surtsicna (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure it is right to have these general discussions on article pages which are meant to be about suggestions for improvement to the article. I have invited you twice to discuss this on my talk page, it seems you don't want to, so I will respond here at least for now. The Duke and Duchess of Windsor fought from the time they married until his death to have her designated "HRH" to show that she had royal status, his brother the King refused. Diana, Princess of Wales had her "HRH" revoked on her divorce, this caused quite a scandal and is still remembered with some bitterness by those who admired her. In fact it is reading about the fight of the Duke of Windsor to have his wife made "HRH" that made me think that when I saw these German "royals" with that "style" it meant that they really had royal titles. They should not have those honorific abbreviations applied to them on WP, it is inaccurate and misleading.Smeat75 (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: They should because people use those honorifics to refer to them. That is completely accurate. People call them Highnesses, and we report that. As simple as that. When King George VI decreed that the Duchess of Windsor should not be known as a Royal Highness, no source referred to her as such. That is obviously different than the situation we are discussing, as these people are styled as royals by sources. Mind you, George's decree was not a law of any kind. Nobody is legally entitled to any style, as I have already explained. Anyway, I fail to see how your talk page is a more appropriate place than this talk page - you are not a prince of any kind, are you? Surtsicna (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

text: From the website of the Museum of Modern Art see this list of Trustees and honorary trustees which includes HRH Duke Franz of Bavaria:OFFICERS & BOARD OF TRUSTEES...Modernist (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But you see, the fact that some people call him that doesn't give it any meaning, they are just doing that to be "polite", WP has no reason to use courtly honorifics in order to be nice to this man,it is misleading. In the case of British people when they are called "HRH" it means they are royal, here it does not, that is why it is confusing.Smeat75 (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it has a meaning. All honorifics are used out of politeness; that is why they are called honorifics. WP should not refer to anyone as a Highness, regardless of that person's constitutional status.  And yes, in this case, referring to Franz as "His Royal Highness" does mean that he is royal, and he is as royal as any other royal person is - and that can be interpreted in many ways. What's important is that he is considered royal, and that he is routinely styled as a Royal Highness. Once again - you are tilting at windmills. Styles are not regulated by law. Nobody is legally entitled to be known as Mr/Ms/Mrs/Miss or Holliness/Highness/Majesty/Eminence/Excellency. Those are all gestures of politeness people choose to use or not to use. People choose to refer to Franz as a Royal Highness, and we report that. We do not do that ourselves, but we do report that people do it. Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed that this has been clarified today and now says "The prefix "His Royal Highness" is used, but is a gesture of politeness and has no legal status in Germany. Under German law royal titles are not recognised legally, but can be used as a part of a surname." Very very good, hearty thanks to whoever did that, if such a clarification could be made on every such article I would have no complaints about the matter, but you cannot put that into those navboxes, that is why the honorific abbreviations need to be removed from them.Smeat75 (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is utterly redundant. No style has a legal status anywhere. Surtsicna (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, our opinions of the status of the styles are irrelevant.  If the Queen of England came into my home, I'd call her Mrs. Mountbatten.  But I'm not going to suggest that Wikipedia bend to my eccentricities.  WP:COMMONNAME is the policy, like it or not.  --Coemgenus (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, the editors of this page obviously know a very great deal about royalty, far more than most people. When Charles Prince of Wales is called "HRH" it means he has an official title. When this man is called "HRH" it means something different. That is why it is confusing, I am grateful to Rushton for clearing it up,and have thanked him or her for it.Smeat75 (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: When Charles is called "HRH", it's because an ancestor of his said so and people obliged. When Franz is called "HRH", it's because an ancestor of his said so and people obliged. Neither of the two is "legally" entitled to be known as a Royal Highness, yet both are styled as such. There is nothing confusing about that. You appear to be intentionally ignoring explanations provided to you by several users, especially those pointing out that there is nothing (il)legal about royal styles or any other forms of address. Surtsicna (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point of continuing this discussion about this matter here, as far as I am concerned the issue of the use of "HRH" in the body of this particular article has now been resolved by the edits of Rushton, for which I am grateful.Smeat75 (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

text: I'm amused by the notion that royal titles, assumed by a political act, cannot be removed by a political act. —Tamfang (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only that they weren't. It is true that the Republic of Austria considers it an offense against it self to claim them (not use them on other people, hence, reportedly, invitation cards like "I, NN. Habsburg-Lothringen, am glad to invite to the marriage of my son, HIH NN. Archduke of Austria"), but the Free-State of Bavaria does not.--2001:A61:20AD:501:BC0A:8993:921C:6DEB (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Besides, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Munich once began a speech in the Parliament of the Freestate of Bavaria (where he had been invited as guest orator or so) with the words "Your Royal Highness", because apparently the Duke or some other prince were present in the gallery. And noone was put into prison, or had to pay a fine, whatever republicanists would have wished for.--2001:A61:260C:C01:9440:F1B4:87B6:67E (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bavarian Royal Family" infobox with list of false titles 

message: The section on Duke Franz' birthday party included the mention of the Minister-President of Bavaria, Horst Seehofer, "(formerly President of the German Bundesrat)". Aside from the fact that this is but a side note, I do not think it is relevant that Seehofer was President of the German Bundesrat. As the Bundesrat consists of the governments of the Federal States, Seehofer held the presidency of the chamber ex officio as Minister-President of Bavaria. While the office is officially elected, there is an agreement that the heads of Federal States succeed each other in the office according to their state's rank in inhabitants. His holding the office as such is not a personal achievement but a product of it being Bavaria's turn to hold the office and he happening to be the Minister-President at the time. As the text of the article notes Seehofer "formerly" held the office, it is doubly irrelevant for the article at issue, and I'm thus eliminating the remark. --95.90.54.245 (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party guests 

message: : The current senior co-heir-general of King James II ...
Can one be heir-general to a non-ancestor?  Unfortunately Heir-general redirects to an article that does not use the term, let alone define it.  This sentence previously named Charles I (an ancestor) rather than James II.
Is the prefix co– there because in English common law there is no seniority between sisters? That principle has never been applied to the throne (though it seems 1952 was the first time it could be), nor to Scottish peerages. —Tamfang (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article may begin to answer your question (Heirs of the body). Deusveritasest (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes, you can be the heir or heir-general to someone from which you do not decend. the prefix "co-" does not belong here and has been removed. King of Nothing (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your edit summary: removed co from co-heir general of James II; is not possible for their to be a co-heir general in this situation.  For the reason I mentioned above, or otherwise? —Tamfang (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  heir-general 

message: There's no other references to Othonists on Wikipedia. At the very least a redlink should be provided for this word.
1.127.106.104 (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it has something to do with Otto of Greece, who's Greek name is Othon. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's an Othonist? 

message: NOT a criticism, just a thought... and not specifically directed at this article except that it's what I happened to be reading today... it seems inappropriate to me for an encyclopedia to list a person under a title of nobility connected to a realm that ceased to exist fifteen years before he was born, or at least to do so in a way that looks as if the individual is the current holder of a legitimate office. I am prejudiced in that I find the concept of hereditary nobility itself to be offensive. But while there is indeed an extant and nearly-universally recognized political entity that recognizes Henry Charles Albert David as "the Duke of Sussex," Franz's title is largely a thing of fantasy, little more grounded in current reality than Richard Booth's claim to be "King of Hay". PurpleChez (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you are saying, but there are a few things we should keep in mind. Firstly, the Free State of Bavaria does recognize Franz as Herzog von Bayern. Secondly, we are under no obligation to use a legal name. Things of fantasy are perfectly fine and very common. We have Queen Latifah, Emperor Norton, etc. We call people whatever they are called in reliable sources. It is not up to us to ponder whether that common name is legally recognized or reasonable. Surtsicna (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "I understand what you are saying" You do? Then please explain, how is the fact that hereditary nobility continues to exist "offensive"? And how does I don't like it have any effect on article content? Dimadick (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is really not so difficult to grasp that a person may be offended by the idea that some people are "noble" (i.e. better than others) due to their descent. PurpleChez only mentioned that as a disclaimer and he certainly did not base his comment on a dislike of nobility. He was questioning the accuracy of the content. That is what we are here to do, not to debate how the survival of hereditary nobility into the 21st century might be offensive. Surtsicna (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Surtsicna! I merely raised the question, and your response was both constructive and friendly. Too bad not everyone operates that way.... PurpleChez (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titile 

message: Shouldn’t it be said in his info box that he was born in Munich, Nazi Germany? Jimmyy68 (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it's very relevant. MPS1992 (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to agree and say that we don’t label birth countries based on the then prevailing constitutional arrangements (eg French Third Republic, instead of ‘France’). But having checked out other articles it seems we do. The Germans born during the Nazi era that I checked (e.g. Gerhard Schroder) are described in their Infoboxes as born in Nazi Germany and Francois Mitterand is described as being born in the Third Republic. Seems odd to me, but that does seem to be the practice. DeCausa (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of his birth 

message: "Franz is a direct descendant of the House of Stuart." This is a meaningless expression. Yes he is a descendant of the House of Stuart, but then so are millions of other people, including nearly all the royal families of Europe. Does it mean he is descended from a Stuart monarch in the direct male line? No, he isn't. Does it mean he has the best hereditary claim to the Stuart succession? No, he doesn't (Queen Elizabeth, as 10-times great-granddaughter of James I, has a better claim). The word "direct" should be deleted. Constant Pedant (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, he’s either a descendant or not. “Best hereditary claim”? The Queen’s claim is “best” because the line of succession was altered by Statute in 1701. Not because of having a closer relationship to James I. Absent the statutory change, Franz would be ahead of the Queen purely in terms of primogeniture. DeCausa (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "Direct descendant"

message: The lede is a perfectly reasonable attempt  at a difficult problem, but we are now stating as a fact his surname is ‘Herzog von Bayern’, which is what people are concerned about in terms of saying someone has a title. Presumably he was born with the last name ‘Königlicher Prinz von Bayern’ (which was the title during the monarchy), or maybe just ‘Prinz von Bayern’. Can we verify that he changed his last name, and it’s Herzog von Bayern now. Or does he use Herzog von Bayern as a title and is recognised as such? - dwc lr (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , It's reasonable apart from the bit about the article title asserting a nonexistent title, yes. Guy (help!) 21:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herzog von Bayern 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 22:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress