Talk:Wilhelm Karl, Duke of Urach

message: This page has been moved for the following reasons.  First, consistency: Wikipedia does not recognize temporary titles of pretence. E.g., we have Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta, not Tomislav II of Croatia; Prince Frederick Charles of Hesse, not Väinö I of Finland. Secondly, notability; in the life of a man of 63 years, it is absurd to inflate a three-month episode which amounted to nothing in the end to characterize his entire life. Third, POV; it takes the viewpoint of an infinitesimally tiny monarchist minority and makes it the dominant historical viewpoint expressed by Wikipedia. For all these reasons, the Duke of Urach should not be characterized by Wikipedia as "Mindaugas II". It should merely be said that it was intended, if the Duke took the throne, to have him bear this name. It is not clear that he ever personally used it on any document issued by himself.RandomCritic (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved

message: And back to the question, on the continuum of Lithuanian history, is this KING of low-importance, or high-importance? That's the question. That's all the question asks. No need to ruin one's day. Dr. Dan 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: And Back to the Question

message: I'd recommend the lecture of the essay of Sergej von Cube: Ein württembergischer Prinz auf dem Thron von Litauen, 1918 in German http://jahrbuch.annaberg.de/cube.html. In my opinion this is a neutrally written account of what happened in 1918. It shows the German pressure on Lithuania that led to the election in July and the change of mind in October. In the article somebody denotes this essay as "claims", IMO, they do not demand anything and they are well proven, providing links to the relevant archives of the Hauptstaatsarchiv in Stuttgart. According to this essay, Wilhelm has never been to Lithuania, talks having taken place in Freiburg and he did never act as a king. I further recommend adding some of these developments to the article, even if they were not of lasting importance for Lithuania. Since the lead has been shortened, the king-thing is not understandable any more. I leave this to interested parties. --Gf1961 10:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On November 2nd, the Taryba univocally made the following resolution: "The July 11th decison of the Taryba to appoint the Duke of Urach to King of Lithuania will not be executed". --131.152.61.96 10:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this page is clearly being used by republicans to promote agendas.--Couter-revolutionary 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this crap is being re-started by monarchists to promote agendas, can I simply say Écrassez l'infame?. I also say let them go to the article on H.I.M. Bokassa I, have a troll fest, and then "Let them eat cake"! Dr. Dan 02:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is certainly not beign used by monarchists to promote agendas! Further, to what "crap" do you refer? and how is it being re-started?--Couter-revolutionary 16:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading 

message: I was at his Lichtenstein castle near Stuttgart in 2006 as a tourist and saw a document from the then-Pope hanging in the chapel.
I suppose Lithuania had a Catholic ethos then - it must be less today. A German protective link was considered better at that time the previous experience of a Russian link from the 1700s to 1917. Especially the prospect of a communist regime ruling a Catholic country.
So he may (must) appear less important now than he was to the Taryba in 1917-18. I think he was elected by majority vote, and he undertook to live in Lithuania, speak Lithuanian and remain Roman Catholic. That was what went down in 1918, and is of historical interest, but we live in a different Europe today.Wluki 12:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: blessing from the Pope

message: Why is a citation needed as to the Duke's descent from the Jagiellons? Almost every European royal is descended from them, Catholic and Protestant alike, they did after all live a long time ago. In his particular case, his great-grandmother in paternal line was a granddaughter of Friedrich Wilhelm I, King in Prussia, by his daughter Sophie Dorothea Marie, Margravine of Brandenburg-Schwedt. The line can easily be traced back from Friedrich Wilhelm I to John Sigismund, Elector of Brandenburg, who married a daughter of Albert, Duke of Prussia, whose wife was a daughter of Wilhelm, Duke of Julich-Cleves-Berg, whose wife was a daughter of the Emperor Ferdinand I by Anna, a daughter of Vladislaus II of Bohemia and Hungary, a Jagiellon. He doubtless had numerous other descents, but this was the easiest to hand.
I call him the Duke because he was undoubtedly that, and seems to have neither reigned nor ruled in Lithuania.
86.162.143.103 (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see someone has restored the "citation needed", on the grounds that the Talk page is not a reference. I can see that, but where exactly is one expected to find a reference tracing the descent of the 2nd Duke of Urach from the Jagiellon Kings? I supplied from my own knowledge ample information for anyone who cares to to trace the descent all the way, using Wikipedia articles. The descent is not in any way in doubt, and I think the "citation needed" is just plain silly. I won't revert as that gets pretty silly too, but I would appreciate it if someone would explain exactly where it is they think I am wrong.
86.162.143.103 (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed? 

message: « William of Urach descended from the Lithuanian Jagiellon dynasty, among others kings [...] »
2118: Casimir IV Jagiellon (1427-1492)
x 10 March 1454
2119: Elisabeth of Austria (d. 1505) (1435?-1505)
:1059: Barbara Jagiellon (1478-1534)
:x 21 November 1496, Leipzig
:1058: George, Duke of Saxony (1471-1539)
::529: Magdalena of Saxony (1507-1534)
::x 6 November 1524, Dresden
::528: Joachim II Hector, Elector of Brandenburg (1505-1571)
:::264: John George, Elector of Brandenburg (1525-1598)
:::x (3) 6 October 1577
:::265: Elisabeth of Anhalt-Zerbst (1563-1607)
::::132: Joachim Ernest, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach (1583-1625)
::::x 1612
::::133: Sophia zu Solms-Laubach (1594-1651)
:::::66: Albert, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach (1620-1667)
:::::x 5 October 1651
:::::67: Sophie Margarete, Gräfin zu Oettingen-Oettingen 1634-1664
::::::33: Eleonore Juliane von Brandenburg-Ansbach (1663-1724)
::::::x 31 October 1682
::::::32: Frederick Charles, Duke of Württemberg-Winnental (1652-1697)
:::::::16: Karl Alexander, Duke of Württemberg (1684-1737)
:::::::x 1st May 1727, Frankfurt am Main
:::::::17: Maria Augusta von Thurn und Taxis (1706-1756)
::::::::8: Frederick II Eugene, Duke of Württemberg (1732-1797)
::::::::x 29 November 1753, Schwedt
::::::::9: Friederike Sophia Dorothea of Brandenburg-Schwedt (1736-1798)
:::::::::4: William Fredereick Philip of Wurtemberg (1761-1830)
:::::::::x 23 August 1800
:::::::::5: Wilhelmine Rodis, Gräfin von Thunderfeldt (1777-1832)
::::::::::2: Wilhelm, 1st Duke of Urach (1810-1869)
::::::::::x (2) 15 February 1863
::::::::::3: Princess Florestine of Monaco (1833-1897)
:::::::::::1: 'Mindaugas II of Lithuania '
Source: page 'Wilhelm II von Urach' in the genealogical database 'roglo', and a list of Mindaugas' ancestors, including 12 degrees (number of 'generations' is used in a bad manner by French genealogists, showing together the person which is studied and the degrees of ancestors...)
If it should be useful for this 'citation needed'...  Hégésippe | ±Θ± 17:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have already noted previously (), the citation is necessary not just because there is some doubt about the fact (actually, there isn't much doubt about that - most likely almost all European kings and dukes of that period can be proved to be descendants of some Lithuanian grand duke), but because there is a doubt about the importance and relevance of the fact. Did anyone care if he was a descendant of Casimir IV Jagiellon? If the answer is "yes", there should be at least some source that would discuss that. And if there is no such source (that's likely to be the case, as none has been provided since April of 2008 - ), there seems to be no reason why we should mention this here either. Thus I'm going to remove the sentence in question. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilhelm and the [[Jagiellon dynasty]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wilhelm Karl, Duke of Urach. 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/20110519065147/http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/27/26/00053293.pdf to http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/27/26/00053293.pdf
*Added  tag to http://home.comcast.net/~jcviser/akb/urach.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified