Talk:Empress Elisabeth of Austria

message: Why this title? Dennis Wheatley, in “The Second Seal”(1950) suggests:
[A character speaks of a chalet near Hohenems]
“Do you not know its history? The châlet was built for my grandmother, the Empress Elizabeth, for her to have mountain air and treatment there when they thought she had consumption. But it turned out that she was not tubercular after all; and afterwards, whenever she went abroad incognito, she always travelled as the Countess Hohenembs to perpetuate the memory of her happy deliverance.”
Is there a source for this? The name would have been picked for some reason, anyway.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:E08D:8A00:305A:8611:AD37:9442 (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Countess of Hohenems

message: "the marriage started to deteriorate, undone by Elisabeth's increasingly erratic behaviour". This seems a little unfair a judgement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.72.5 (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV?

message: *Support Her primary title was duchess in Bavaria, differentiating her family from the royal line. Charles 05:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. WhiteNight T | @ | C 18:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Result

message: :had obviously first shot his lover then himself
Why say it's obvious? Is there some controversy surrounding this? Have people suggested he was assasinated? Mr. Jones 15:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious? POV, perhaps? 

message: :On 10 September 1898, in Geneva, Switzerland, Elisabeth, aged 61, was stabbed to death with a file in a pointless act of anarchism. Reportedly, her assassin, a young man called Luigi Lucheni, had failed to encounter the man he really wanted to kill and turned on Elisabeth instead as she was walking along the promenade of Lake Geneva about to board a steamship for Montreux. As Lucheni afterward said, "I wanted to kill a royalty. It did not matter which one." Bleeding to death from a puncture wound to the heart, Elisabeth's last words were "What happened to me?" 
"Pointless act of anarchism"? Who thinks that's NPOV? --Sam Francis
:I! AFAIK the act doesn't have anything to do with anarchism. From : "Lucheni was a forgotten and even despised figure in anarchist circles. He was often called "the stupid one" in anarchist groups, according to police records at the time of the trial." Guaka 20:00, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her death by stabbing: was it pointless? Was it anarchism? 

message: Someone added this:
"The musical had been performed in Japan Takarazuka since 1995 by yuki gumi, hoshi gumi, sora gumi, hana gumi. It will be replay in 2005 by tsuki gumi. Toho muscial troop had also been performing this muscial show starring ichiro maki as Elizabeth. It had been a great succcess."
Help me understand what it means. Some of it makes sense, but some of it is hard for me to figure out. Everyking 04:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a go at making it clearer, though I don't know if it's correct. Mr. Jones 15:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: This refers to a specific production by the Takarazuka Revue, and the various "troupes" within which have performed it. I have clarified this and moved it to the Elisabeth (Musical) page, as I don't think it really belongs here. Seann 11:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance of a musical of her life by a Japanese theatre company 

message: Per Wikipedia naming conventions; also for strict consistency. Her sister Sophia is listed as Sophia Charlotte Augustine Duchess in Bavaria (comma missing in that article's title), as her maiden name. and Duchess "in" Bavaria a different kettle of fish from a Duchess "of" Bavaria. If anyone disagrees with me on this, then we should change sister Sophia's entry to conform. Mowens35 14:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i think we need a thorough discussion on the naming rules of queen consorts, empress consorts, and monarchs. according to current wikipedia rules, Marie Antoinette should be listed as Maria Antonia, Archduchess of Austria. do I need to go on? this current rule is to say the least, absolute b..... and needs to be changed. honestly, who has ever heard of "Mary of Teck"? anyone who knows that wins a price (Answer:Queen Mary of UK. why it is impossible to list her under that is beyond my comprehension). discussion on changing the rule most welcome Antares911 11:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name format again

message: hi there. i´m trying to get a discussion going to change the rules on naming consorts, monarchs, etc.. it´s a bit of mess at the moment. maybe you wanna join in and give your opinion? feel free  cheers Antares911 00:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal consorts and monarchs 

message: "The Empress Elizabeth of Austria, In: “Fashion and Fetishism” by David Kunzle
Elisabeth was born in 1837 of the eccentric Bavarian Wittelsbach royal line, and married the young Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria-Hungary when she was sixteen. After the relative freedom of her Bavarian childhood, she found herself thrust into Europe’s most ossified court. Her sense of personal dignity and independence as well as her very real democratic and humanitarian instincts continuously offended against the role into which she was cast.
Her first “political” duty was to breed. She had three children in quick succession, after which, despite her excellent health and natural fertility, she refused to have any more (although she was later to have a fourth child), and encouraged her husband to take a mistress and develop a ménage à trois rather than suffer his sexual attentions. This sexual rejection was all the more publicly scandalous and personally painful in that the Emperor was known to be (or have been) infatuated with his wife. The result was that the Empire, after the suicide of their only son, the Crown Prince Rudolph, was left without a male heir. In the oppressively rigid Habsburg court, and under the constant interference of her mother-in-law, the Archduchess Sophie, which prevented her from breast-feeding her children and developing a natural relationship with them, she became reputed sexually frigid (she had been virtually raped on her wedding-night), and unmaternal, as she herself confessed, “loath(ing) the whole business of child-bearing” (Haslip, p. 87; Paléologue, p. 17).
Her sexuality was sublimated in her attachment to her younger daughter Valerie, large animals (especially horses), and the cultivation of her own body. She was famous for her equestrianship - haute école, circus-style stunt riding, and hunting. At 44 years “she looked like an angel and rode like the devil” (Haslip p. 325). When she finally gave up riding in 1882, she devoted herself to marathon solitary hikes, swimming, gymnastics and fencing.
The Empress’ fear of pregnancy, her mania for sport and violent exercise, her preoccupation with her physique, her peculiar diet, her attitude to dress - all had one common denominator: the preservation of a figure which was naturally very slender, small-boned and muscular. She was tall (172cm, five feet eight inches), and never weighed over 50 kilos (111 pounds) all her adult life. Her legendary beauty and charm brought her oppressive adulation wherever she went in Europe. She preserved her youthful appearance in the face of what press and medical opinion viewed as bizarre, not to say improper, excesses in sport, diet and slimming. She hated to have to sit down to eat. She abominated banquets. For long periods she lived on a daily diet of raw steak and a glass of milk or orange-juice. She struck people as hyperactive, and astonishingly hardy. Her illnesses were all evidently psychosomatic, and her neurotic crises always cleared up when she was away from court, and was free to travel and ride, free of the gaze of courtiers and public, which she experienced as physically painful - as a visual rape.
Her diary, alas, was destroyed by the police after her death. But further study of archival material, of medical and newspaper reports, might reveal much more of the precise circumstances surrounding her youthful reputation for tight-lacing. It seems that around 1860-61 her waist measured no more than the 16 inches of the belt exhibited in London at the Great Exhibition (cf. pp. 220-21). Why was an object with such scandalous associations put on public display? With her horror of publicity, especially as regards details of her personal life, it seems inexplicable that the Empress would have encouraged gossip around so intimate a matter as a waist-measurement. If the numerous biographies remain silent on this curious episode, is it because domestically the matter was hushed up? After all, in order to protect the imperial dignity the police actively suppressed stories of her equine acrobatics, and destroyed photographs pertaining to it. If the 16 inch belt was displayed with her permission and knowledge (and it seems hard to conceive otherwise) or, worse, on her personal initiative, was it intended as a provocation? Was it the bizarre symbol of or satire upon the exhibitionism to which the most adulated woman in Europe was subject?
Her “peak tight-lacing period” seems to coincide with the prolonged and recurrent fits of paranoid depression which she suffered 1859-60, which have been attributed to her husband’s political defeats, her three pregnancies, her sexual withdrawal, and quarrels with her mother-in-law over the rearing of her children. Immediately after each pregnancy, she dieted and exercised rigorously; the smallness of her waist, which she appeared to flaunt and exaggerate, angered the Archduchess, who wanted her to be continuously pregnant. There were frequent rumours of grave illnesses at this time; consumption was widely diagnosed, and she was even accused of killing herself with tight-lacing. Her health improved immediately after she left Vienna for extended travels, and was able to confront the physical hardships of nature and sport. On her return to Vienna in August 1862, a lady-in-waiting noted her improved sociability, and that “she looks splendidly, she eats properly, sleeps well, and does not tight-lace anymore” (Corti, p.107). At this time her waist-measure had probably increased to 18 inches, its reputed extent (more or less) until her death (de Burgh, p.198, put it at 20). (Cf. Pl. 86). Other costumes exhibited at the Museum of Modern Art had external measures of 18 1/2 (bridal evening dress, 1854) and 19 1/2 (two, including the bodice through which the Empress was stabbed to death, repr. Joseph Wechsbert). In 1882, she is described by the Prince of Hesse as “almost inhumanly slender.” In 1887 she was “scarcely human in (her) fantastic attributes of hair and line” (Haslip, pp. 334 and 373). In 1890, she is still “graceful, but almost too slender” and “excessively slender, but still in terror of growing stout” (De Burgh, p.58; Corti, p.425). She was at this time having herself heavily massaged, and wrapped naked in wet sheets impregnated with seaweed. She transmitted her horror of fat women to her daughter Valerie, who was positively terrified when, as a little girl, she first met Queen Victoria.
Her body became a religious cult, but one of a highly ascetic and solitary nature. Clothing, as such, was excluded from the cult. She disliked the expensive accoutrements and the constant changes of outfit to which her role condemned her. She caused offence by the plainness, the preferred monochrome of her attire (De Burgh, p.292). What mattered to her was perfect fit.
An essential and early constituent of her legend was that she was regularly sewn into her riding-habit. “It was common knowledge in the hunting-field that a tailor from Whitchurch went every day to the Abbey to sew the skirt of the Empress’ habit onto her close-fitting bodice, so that there should not be the slightest crease or wrinkle around her 18 inch waist” (Haslip, p. 325). Her niece Countess Marie Larisch (p.65) confirms this custom, and that “she wore high laced boots with tiny spurs.” Her English hunting companions loved her for her warmth, modesty, ease of manner, for the fact that she was not (otherwise) at all “sewn-in,” and for her anger at any instance of cruelty to horses which came to her attention (De Burgh, p.289).
Some of her corsets were made in leather, like those of a Parisian courtesan. “Her many-coloured satin and moiré corsets were made in Paris, and she only wore them for a few weeks. They had no front-fastenings (i.e., no split busk, current since c. 1860), and Elizabeth was always laced into her corsets, a proceeding which sometimes took quite an hour (!-sic). She never wore petticoats ... when she took her walks she slipped her unstockinged feet into her boots, and wore no underlinen of any description ... she slept on an iron bedstead, with no pillows” (Larisch, p.78).
Her hair was a glory, in texture very thick and wavy, a rich chestnut in colour, and hung down below her knees. Dressing it was the most important ritual of the toilette, which lasted up to two hours, during which she usually read, or studied languages. Many anecdotes testify how her self-imposed “enslavement” to her hair sublimated her sense of enslavement to the public role, how she used her capillary crown “in order to get rid of the other one” (the imperial crown). The hair was inviolable, mystical, almost literally sacred, a cult of which her spoiled and arrogant hairdresser was the high-priestess (Tschuppik, p.114, De Burgh, p.58, Corti, p.112, etc.)
The biography of the Austrian Empress contains a whole psychology of fetishism, which emerges with peculiar intensity and pathos as a function of her struggle within her uniquely elevated social rank. The rituals around her riding, slimming cures, corseting and hair were various channels of escape from and protest against her public role, attempts to recover an individual identity of which a pettifogging court, a devouring public, insatiable reporters and photographers constantly worked to deprive her.
Conspiracy to Assassinate the Empress Elizabeth?
September 1898 found the Empress — again travelling as the Countless Hohenems — at the little resort of Territet, on the shores of Lake Geneva, not far from the Castle of Chillon. Territet was one of her favourite refuges. From here one could make little excursions to the lakeside towns — Geneva, Lausanne, Nyon, Vevey, Montreux. It was after one such excursion to the ' 'Rothschild' ' residence near Geneva, on September 10, as the Empress and her little entourage were hurrying to catch the ferry for Territet, a shadowy figure stepped forth from the trees and struck the Empress on the chest with his fist. She stumbled and fell, it took some time to realise that the assault was murderous . As her companions hurried to her aid she is said to have murmured, "What could that man have wanted? Perhaps he wanted to snatch my watch." -- "Sisi, The Empress of Solitude" by G.S. Cheema, The Tribune Saturday Plus, August 22, 1998; 
http://www.tribuneindia.com/1998/98aug22/saturday/head3.htm
...the Illuminati acting through the Grand Orient Masons were responsible for these political assassinations...: Empress of Austria, 1898; King Humbert, 1900; President McKinley, 1901; Grand Duke Sergius of Russia, 1905; King and Crown prince of Portugal, 1908. -- "Pawns in the Game." (4th Edition, April, 1962), William Guy Carr [b.1895/06/02, d. 1959/10/02] St. George Press Los Angeles, California. pb 193 p. 76
In 1889, the London Fabian-trained Nobel Peace Prize winner Jane Addams brought socialism and international "peace" to Chicago neighborhoods (University of Chicago). Addams was just in time for the poverty and wars that would define the coming 20th century and lead us into the 21st century Middle Eastern Clash of Civilizations (Huntington 1993) ... In 1901, U.S. President William McKinley was assassinated "for the working man" by an immigrant laborer who associated with anarchists and Fabian Socialist Emma Goldman in Chicago (American Jewish Historical Society). Goldman's Fabian terrorism was also the inspiration for the foundation of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "McKinley's assassination came after a wave of anarchist terrorism in Europe. Between 1894 and 1900, anarchist assassins had killed M.F. Sadi Carnot, President of France; Elizabeth, Empress of Austria; and Humbert I, King Of Italy" (US Gov. Archives). -- "The Historical Evolution of Communitarian Thinking" by Niki F. Raapana and Nordica M. Friedrich, Revised December 19, 2003
Those readers who are superstitiously inclined may note the following. A day or two before the Empress’s visit to Pregny, while she was out of doors in the company of Mr. Barker, her English reader, a raven (bird of ill-omen) suddenly swooped down and struck out of her hands a peach which she was peeling. Further, when she reached the Hotel Beaurivage, bringing with her a number of choice orchids the gift of Baroness Adolphe de Rothschild, she found her rooms decorated with mauve and white asters, which in many continental countries are regarded as “flowers of death.” -- 
Citation to Follow"
Now, whilst this has some fascinating parts, particularly the first assassination attempt, it needs to be integrated into the current article, rather than trying to start its own, halfway into the main article.  Also, there is a bit of a problem with point of view and opinion stating.  I don't know if the anonymous user who added this is watching this page or even planning on visiting wikipedia again.  If this is the case, they are more than welcome to integrate it in themselves, but first look at What_wikipedia_is_not, particularly the "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" subsection.  The edit added here is full of original research, which is nice for a term paper, but is not commonly accepted knowledge, and needs to be left out of the article until such a time as it is.  (Maaya 13:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit by 66.124.103.168 

message: The unusual title Duchess in requires clarification. Who was her father? I would guess the head of a cadet branch of the Bavarian royal family, but could someone please explain this matter. 82.35.34.11 12:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Her father was Duke Maximilian Joseph of Bavaria (1808-1888).  There doesn't seem to be an English wiki page on him, just the German one. It says there he was descended from one of the Rhenish Palatinate lines.  Is that what you were looking for? (Maaya 23:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, the royal Bavarian line was also descended from one of the Rhenish Palatinate lines, but a more senior one.  The family tree is as follows:
                 Christian I, Count Palatine of Birkenfeld-Bischweiler (1598-1654)
                                      |
        +-----------------------------+--------------------------+
        |                                                        |
    Christian II of Birkenfeld (1637-1717)       Johann Karl of Gelnhausen (1638-1704)
        |                                                        |
     Christian III of Birkenfeld (1674-1735)            Johann of Birkenfeld (1698-1780)
         |                                                       |
     Friedrich Michael of Birkenfeld (1724-1767)                 |
          |                                                      |
     +----+------------------------------+                       |
     |                                   |                       |
  Maximilian I of Bavaria         Marie Anne   = Wilhelm, Duke in Bavaria
     (1756-1825)                      (1753-1824)       (1752-1837)
From Maximilian I descended the senior line, who had the title of Princes of Bavaria.  From Wilhelm descended the junior line, of Dukes in Bavaria. 151.199.227.20 17:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, William, Duke in Bavaria, was the son of John, Count Palatine of Birkenfeld-Gelnhausen, as the tree above shows. Charles 19:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Please explain her ususual title "Duchess in"

message: I know it's probably nit-picking, but according to the German Wikipedia her last words were "Was ist eigentlich geschehen?", which translates as "What actually happened?" rather than "What happened to me?". Is anyone able to verify one or the other? T-Rence 23:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Last words

message: She loved horses and was no doubt the best horsewoman of her time.
This is a pretty minor thing, but I feel that "no doubt the best" is a slight bias, or at least requires some sort of citation, as arguing that someone is the best is inherently biased.  Opinions?
:Yeah, just say she was noted as a skilled horsewoman, or something. john k 02:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV issue?

message: I'm pretty sure there's an animated "biography" of this girl's life made by Saban. RocketMaster 08:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cartoon 

message: Dear Friends, do you know if we can write the biographies of the writer of the new books about Elisabeth of Austria ? I think it is a good idea to know what every book contain and to have a short summary of the writers' life. But I don't know if it's possible. thank you. Giuly
I know something about a new book about Elisabeth and Archduchess Sophie. They understand better, than we know. The book is written by Gabriele Praschl-Bichler and come out in March 2008. You can buy it by Amazon. 
--AndreaMimi (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: new books about Elisabeth

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support as nom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: To me, Albert is no direct descendant of hers, there may be a confusion with another Elisabeth of Bavaria who is his grand Mother. 
Will someone confirm this ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.182.137 (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct link to Albert 2 

message: I read in this article that ludwig II was Elisabeth's nephew. For me, it's her half-cousin. i changed this information.--Locusfr (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ludwig II

message: ::I looked for her under Elizabeth of Austria and Couldn't find her. I know she was born in Bavaria, thus looked for her under that title. However, not everybody would know that, seeing as she's commonly referred to in history books, films, fashion articles, etc. as Elizabeth of Austria. In fact, she is often called Empress Elizabeth of Austria. The title needs to be changed. It could be entitled Elizabeth of Bavaria, Empress of Austria.--jeanne (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The title for the corresponding article in the German-language Wikipedia is Elizabeth of Bavaria (well, Elisabeth in Bayern), so there must be good reason for this title.Hohenloh (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is the article still titled Elizabeth of Bavaria?

message: ::I have always seen Sissi, but perhaps Sisi is German? Here in Italy they use Sissi.--jeanne (talk) 08:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Sissi is the standard spelling in modern German, and Sisi is a historical spelling. Not sure though. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  the historical form is "Sisi". the version with the double-s is based on the movie.--88.117.85.214 (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sisi or Sissi?

message: I suggest "Empress Elisabeth, consort of Franz Joseph I, Emperor of Austria."  Entitling biographical articles with a fairly obscure identity seems unnecessary. Torontonian1 (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. First of all, the title you propose is invented. It would also be against conventions and against consistency. It would not be useful at all because no historian mentions her as Empress Elisabeth, consort of Franz Joseph I, Emperor of Austria. Surtsicna (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A better title for this article 

message: Why is Franz Joseph called "Francis Joseph" throughout this article? Why is his name anglicized to this extent? I am an American educated in the US and we never, ever have referred to him as "Francis".  And then again neither does Wikipedia anywhere else... Did someone just arbitrarily decide that they liked the name Francis better than Franz - maybe because of its unisexual appeal or sexual ambiguity? I find it very strange that someone went through this article and systematically changed his name to Francis (which they would have to do to enable the extent of its consistent use throughout the article)... And went out of their way with Wikipedia internal references (which list him as Franz Joseph) to insist upon Francis in any references here. On the one hand, it is not a big deal but on the other it seems rather peculiar... Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since When is Franz Joseph Called Francis Joseph? 

message: I don't get this. Greece had two queens in the 19th century, one was a Saxon and the other Russian.Who were these "Bavarian Greek" queens, and who are these contemporary scholars?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.81.13 (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  According to contemporary scholars, Empress Elisabeth knew Greek better than any of the Bavarian Greek queens in the 19th century. 

message: There has never been any proof of this. There were enough rumours about this, but there is no direct indication that any of these rumours were true. quite the contrary, possible due to the 'reputed sexual frigidity'. So maybe it would be nice if you could edit this into the Wiki page and add a slight bias to it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.60.201.234 (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the Editor:  "and a series of reputed lovers'"... part 

message: The style and tone currently reads like an essay or the rough draft of a romantic novel. This needs to be fixed as soon as possible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone of the article

message: Unfortunately about what you are saying about:
'Like all fifteen Hapsburg Empresses before her, her body was buried in the crypt, but her heart was sent to the Augustinian Church, where she was married, and her internal organs were placed in the crypt of the Metropolitan Church of Saint Stephen.[38]'
is NOT correct, i don't know the source '38', the book, but i can certainly vouch for the fact that there are 54 hearts of empresses/emperors in the Herzgruft, and Elisabeth is not one of them. The last person who's insides had been seperatad from the body was Franz Karl, the father of Franz Joseph, which happened in 1878, so before the death of Elisabeth. I have checked this fact to be sure with the Augustinerkirche.
btw, I am sure i want to read the 'Elizabeth, empress of Austria: a memoir' now, to see what more they have to tell. So unfortunately i cannot tell if the description of the inner coffins of her coffin is correct.
212.190.80.221 (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elisabeth's interration into the Kaisergruft. 

message: The text currently reads, Elisabeth practised what could be called a true beauty cult. This does not read like encyclopedic prose, but I can't think of how to fix it. Any suggestions? Zyxwv99 (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  True beauty cult 

message: I believe the original lead image, this official photograph, was the best choice. Photographs generally depict people better than paintings and this is not an exception. The photograph was replaced by this painting which I then replaced with a detail of the same painting because it focuses on the subject's face and not on the subject's ball gown. It was all well-explained in the edit summary. I also shortened the caption by leaving out redundant and unneccessary bits. However, all my edits have been reverted without any explanation. Is there any chance that can be explained here? Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Surtsicna. The closeup of Empress Elisabeth is far superior to that of the painting in that it shows her face. This should always be a factor when choosing a lead image. Seeing as there is no convincing argument being put forth advocating the painting, I shall revert to the 1867photo.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The official portrait by Winterhalter is by far the most famous one of her and should accordingly be used in the inbox. See also the portrait by Rigaud of Louis XIV of France for example. Gryffindor (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A portrait should not be used simply because it is famous. It should be useful to the reader. The reader should get to see the face of the subject clearly. Isn't the subject's face more relevant and more important than the subject's costume?  Surtsicna (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

text: There sees to be a similar issue at Talk:Maria Theresa#Lead image. Surtsicna (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Winterhalter portrait would be useful farther down the page but regarding the lead image Surtsicna has already succintly explained why the 1867 photograph showing her face should be used. Gryffindor, please stop edit-warring as there's consensus to use the photo.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I don't understand. How does the fame of a painting make the painting useful? Useful for what? It is not useful to get a clear image of the empress, which is supposed to be the purpose of a lead image. For what it's worth, I would not call the coronation photograph obscure. Surtsicna (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: I find photo caption "Purported last photograph taken of Elisabeth the day before her death at Territet, Switzerland"; there are TWO women in it, so which one is Elisabeth and who is the other?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They both appear to be in black. Can someone add a notation to the photograph indicating which one is Elisabeth? Sadiemonster (talk) 09:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the lady on the left is Elisabeth, but I am not certain. john k (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  which one is Elisabeth? 

message: "Elisabeth, who fled protocol all her life, was unable to escape it in death." This is extremely inappropriate for an encyclopedia.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Empress Elisabeth of Austria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090916000744/http://giornaleonline.unionesarda.ilsole24ore.com:80/Articolo.aspx?Data=20090106&Categ=31&Voce=2&IdArticolo=2312457 to http://giornaleonline.unionesarda.ilsole24ore.com/Articolo.aspx?Data=20090106&Categ=31&Voce=2&IdArticolo=2312457
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Empress Elisabeth of Austria. 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/20131114175817/http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/mtwain/bl-mtwain-memorable.htm to http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/mtwain/bl-mtwain-memorable.htm
*Added  tag to http://www2.onb.ac.at/siteseeing/ba/elisabeth/elisabeth-katalog.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) 19:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I notice that there is a war going on about which portrait of Elisabeth to use in the infobox. It is between the Franz Xaver Winterhalter portrait of 1865 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Winterhalter_Elisabeth_2.jpg and the Georg Martin Ignaz Raab portrait of 1874 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_the_princess_sissi_in_venice.png
I prefer the Raab portrait for two reasons. The first reason is because it shows Elisabeth close to the mid-point of her marriage (she became Empress in 1854 and died 1898 and half-way in-between was 1876.) Secondly, Raab's portrait is of Elisabeth, not of her gown. The real Winterhalter portrait may have been huge and, if so, viewers may have gotten a good view of her face but that is not the case looking at a picture of the portrait on the web. WikiParker (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. The subject of this article is not the Courtly Gala Dress with Diamond Stars. The subject is Elisabeth Amalie Eugenie. Her face is what should be shown in the lead image. Surtsicna (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Also for me the Raab portrait is better --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And why is the Raab painting better than the Rabending photograph? The photograph shows her face much, much more clearly - and that is the reason we prefer Raab to Winterhalter, isn't it? The photograph is also, obviously, a more faithful depiction. Surtsicna (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: they wrote it above "I prefer the Raab portrait for two reasons. The first reason is because it shows Elisabeth close to the mid-point of her marriage (she became Empress in 1854 and died 1898 and half-way in-between was 1876.) Secondly, Raab's portrait is of Elisabeth, not of her gown. The real Winterhalter portrait may have been huge and, if so, viewers may have gotten a good view of her face but that is not the case looking at a picture of the portrait on the web." thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please reread my comment. Surtsicna (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't revert without consesus! Me and WikiParker don't think as you. If the community decides it will be changed, for the moment you are not in the majority --LivioAndronico (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus is to use the photograph. WikiParker agreed to that years ago and does not appear to oppose the photograph. See #Lead image. The community has decided and thus far you are not in the majority. Besides, Wikipedia is not about voting. Can you explain why you think the painting is preferable to the photograph? I have already explained why it is not, but will gladly do so again: a) photographs are more faithful depictions than paintings, b) her face is much, much more visible in the photograph than in the painting. Surtsicna (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it must be a portrait, not the photo of the dress, and the consent of years ago does not count if there are new images! If we have to put a picture, I prefer this  one that is a portrait. What you think?--LivioAndronico (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that you misunderstood me twice already. I am not suggesting that we use the picture of the dress. I suggested, and we agreed to, precisely the photo portrait you linked, i.e. the 1867 coronation photograph. That's the one I reinserted into the article. Surtsicna (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think I have misunderstood , anyway  is that good in your opinion? --LivioAndronico (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it's great. It shows her face very clearly and faithfully. Surtsicna (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perfect....resolve. Thanks. --LivioAndronico (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrait war 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved.  Favonian (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Empress Elisabeth of Austria →  – It is the general custom that royal consorts are known by their birth names. It also seems strange to me to be using the "Empress" title, we have "Queen Victoria" but this sort of titling isn't that common. Векочел (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Austria has been notified of this discussion.  ASUKITE 04:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Hungary has been notified of this discussion.  ASUKITE 04:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Bavaria has been notified of this discussion.  ASUKITE 04:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Oppose. The crucial factor here is WP:COMMONNAME. Elisabeth is primarily remembered as the Empress of Austria and not as a duchess. Ngram confirms this overwhelmingly - Duchess Elisabeth of Austria doesn't even register. Queen Victoria is so called for the same reason - she is primarily remembered in English sources as Queen of the UK, not as Empress of India. Bermicourt (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment "Duchess Elisabeth of Austria doesn't even register." Elisabeth was never a duchess in Austria. Duke in Bavaria/Duchess in Bavaria is the generic title for members of the House of Wittelsbach. Try searching for that term. Dimadick (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Oppose.  makes all the salient points pertaining to this discussion, with which I fully agree. Dr. K. 17:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Oppose as per Bermicourt. Suonii180 (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. StAnselm (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 May 2022 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved.  – robertsky (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Empress Elisabeth of Austria →  – Royal consorts are named by their name and country of origin, even in Wikipedia. For example, it's not 'Queen Alexandra of the United Kingdom', it's 'Alexandra of Denmark'. This article should not be named 'Empress Elisabeth of Austria'. This article should be named 'Elisabeth of Bavaria' (not IN Bavaria, as it's not a reference to her title, but OF Bavaria, because she was born there). If this is for some reason considered controversial because people will think she's unrecognisable without her title, then the title should be at least 'Elisabeth, Empress of Austria and Queen of Hungary' or 'Elisabeth of Austria-Hungary'. The erasure of her title 'Queen of Hungary' is problematic because it was a vital part of her identity, politics and actions; it wasn't for no reason that the Hungarians protested at her coffin only saying 'Empress of Austria', therefore 'Queen of Hungary' being added hastily. Furthermore, she is known as 'in Bavaria' in many places. Just because she's known as an empress to many doesn't mean we have to sacrifice her correct name and title. Putting her correct name may motivate people to learn instead of giving them the bare knowledge. I honestly don't believe there is anyone who will be confused over this, just as no one is confused when they read 'Alexandra of Denmark' instead of 'Queen Alexandra of the United Kingdom'. ImperialFabrics (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Oppose. WP:NCROY effectively just tells us that for deceased consorts, WP:COMMONNAME should apply. She is definitely better known as Empress of Austria. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn’t mean we have to dumb things down just because that’s how people understand it. Another example is people calling Elizabeth II Queen of England even though that title is wrong; we don’t accept it just because it’s popularly used. I propose at least Elisabeth of Austria-Hungary. ImperialFabrics (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, her being Empress of Austria and being known as that only doesn’t mean the article has to be named exactly that. It should be at least Elisabeth of Austria-Hungary or Elisabeth, Empress of Austria and Queen of Hungary. Erasing her Hungarian title is problematic. Also, no one has ever had a problem identifying her by the name of Bavaria. If you check other languages of this article they either say of Bavaria, of Austria-Hungary, of Wittelsbach, etc. No one uses the convention of ‘Consort (name) of (adopted homeland)’. ImperialFabrics (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Move to Elisabeth of Austria, keep as is for second choice - I agree that it feels weird to precede a name with a title, we hardly ever do that and I feel its best to avoid it. She's probably the primary topic for just "Elisabeth of Bavaria" looking at WikiNav . It's also far more common than either "Empress Elisabeth of Austria" (2nd place) or "Elisabeth of Bavaria" (distant 3rd) for ngrams . That being said, if we can't agree that she should be the primary topic for just "Elisabeth of Austria", then I would agree the present title is the best option. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 18 January 2024 

message: They say that Emperess Elisabeth didn't alow any portraits or photos of her after she turned 30 because se thought she wouldn't look good 
Depending a lot on her looks 151.18.0.42 (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sisis Photo ruling