Talk:Elizabeth of Austria (1436–1505)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 15:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know I'm probably not making myself very popular with Polish-speaking users, however I think this article needs to be in the English form since this is the English Wikipedia. Shouldn't this article be titled under "Elisabeth of Austria (1437–1505)", similar to the other Elisabeth of Austrias? "Elzbieta Rakuszanka" is Polish which translates as "Elisabeth of Austria" as stated in the article itself. Gryffindor 20:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support Names should be in English whenever possible. Gryffindor 13:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per Gryffindor. Septentrionalis 19:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC
  • Support per Gryffindor. Charles 22:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. Is there a reason why all the Elisabeths of Austria on WP (including the target of this proposed move) use the "s" and not the "z" spelling? Appleseed (Talk) 13:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, although Elizabeth seems more appropriate than Elisabeth. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Abstain.Object - why force the need for disambigs? The current name is distintive and notable.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yeah, but not English or German. This name, Piotrus, is the kinda name you should be objecting to if you were wanting to convince neutrals you don't wanna Polonize all names of anyone vaguely related to Poland. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • WP standard for consorts is to name then under their birth names. Also, territorial designations should be in English. Rakuszanka is not English. Charles 15:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good move, and Hapsburg isn't a bad suggestion either. Dr. Dan 01:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak support On one hand it would be a safe move and quite a logical one. However, given the number of other Elisabeths of Austria, we'd have to disambiguate it, possibly to Elisabeth of Austria (Elżbieta Rakuszanka), which is not the best option. //Halibutt 15:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • No. The proposed new title contains the woman's birth and death dates, so wouldn't need a dab. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Elisabeth of Austria already is a disambiguation page. Charles 15:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment- The unfortunate consequence of this relentless and nonsensical attempt to "edit" the English Wikipedia with non English names and geographical locations, will ultimately end with a backlash against these editors. What's more unfortunate, is when the smoke clears and all of this is revised, lots of relevant and good editing that should be in Polish (even with diacritics), will be removed. Elżbieta Rakuszanka doesn't cut it. We can't say she lived in Polska and that she and her mąż, Kazimierz, liked rosół z kury for obiad, and expect this to stay in the English Wikipedia. Wake up out there. Dr. Dan 00:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - Use the form of name most commonly used in English-language works as required by Wikistyle manual. Noel S McFerran 07:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Her birth year is not a confirmed piece of infirmation. Various sources tend to give 1435 or 1436. Quite usual for that era - some dates are just approximations. Therefore, absolutely unacceptable to use any birth year in the title. The RM proposal is built upon faulty information, and should not be approved. Moreover, I faced some sources that use "Elisabeth of Habsburg", thus the "of Austria" may just be an invention here. It is quite clear that it cannot be accepted just as a translation from "Rakuszanka" - as Polish words directly translated may lead to erroneous titles in English. Habsburg seems to have additional support from the fact that German WP has titled her as "Elisabeth von Habsburg" (Österreich nowhere even near there). The whole "vote" above should be discarded, as WP needs knowledgeable/ expertised people first to find what actually is her name in trustworthy English texts. Shilkanni 20:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

German WP has little or no relevance on matters concerning English WP. German Wikipedia has little to no consistency with the naming of royals. Charles 20:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I notice that you have no rebuttal for the other arguments. Unusual. Thanks. Shilkanni 21:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Austria is not an invention as all members of the House of Habsburg were "of Austria" (Anne of Austria, Queen of France, is almost never called Anne of Habsburg or even Anne of Spain, for instance). Such is so important that they are sometimes called the House of Austria. German WP cannot be cited as support for a name in English *if* German WP is inconsistent with royal names and doesn't follow English WP naming conventions. Charles 23:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign)Reply[reply]
Thank you, anonymous, for your comment. However, it seems that no one has evidence that she actually is called "of Austria" in relevant English literature. Your examples are from much later eras. Besides, contrarily, those ladies of Austria actually were called "of Habsburg" also in later generations. For example, Alfonso XIII is documented as of "de Borbon y de Habsburgo-Lorena" (see relevant article), which says something about his mother's designation. Besides, a postulation that ALL are called "of Austria" on basis of editors' own conclusions, is close to so-called Original Research. Shilkanni 21:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I forgot to sign my comment. "Of Austria" for Habsburgs is not original research. Once the Habsburgs acquired Austria, all became dukes and then archdukes of Austria. Elisabeth was a duchess of Austria, even though the title of archduke had been assumed. Alfonso XIII is "de Borbon y de Habsburgo-Lorena" because those are house names. He wouldn't be "of Austria" unless he was "de España y de Austria". It is true though: All members of the House of Habsburg at the time were "of Austria". Even the article states she was "of Austria" as well as other territories. Charles 23:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Use of Archduke/archduchess[edit]

the following are copied from User talk:Gryffindor and User talk:Shilkanni, pasted here because of direct relevancy regarding this article

Please stop writing anachronisms to biographies of medieval Habsburgs. If you know anything about the use of the title of archduke, you would know that the assumption by Rudolf IV was based on a document he had forged, and only Frederick III granted the title officially, first to his son and later to certain male cousins. First archduchesses appear only among their descendants. Shilkanni 09:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hello Shilkanni,
maybe if you could refer to which article you are talking about, I would be able to answer your message better. I am assuming you are referring to Elisabeth of Austria (d. 1505) maybe? I am aware that the title "Archduke" was not fully introduced until Rudolf IV, however the article states that she was already referred as such (or that the Habsburgs already called themselves as such), therefore I do not see any problems with the referral. with kind regards Gryffindor 09:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I was referring to Elisabeth of Austria (d. 1505), but if you have put "archduchess" also to any other biography of a medieval female Habsburg, the same applies. Have you??

You are incorrect when indicating that before Rudolf IV, the title somehow already was in existence. Of course, since the first forgery ever to introduce the idea was made at instigation of Rudolf IV, none had thus even heard of it before. Emperor Charles IV refused to recognize the title Rudolf IV had invented through that forgery, so it was not in use even in Rudolf's time nor in long time afterwards. I request you not to spread untruths like "the title 'Archduke' was not fully introduced until Rudolf IV". The history of the title archduke (see that article) goes so that Frederick III confirmed the title in 1453, but only to actual rulers of Austrian territories, i.e himself. A couple of years later, Frederick's younger brother (when receiving his province of trans-Enns) started to use it. Only in 1477, the first cousin was authorized to use it. Frederick's son and heir Maximilian started to use it only after his wife's death that occurred in 1482. In 15th century, it was limited to actual rulers, so no female children used it. Only later, on 16th century, daughters became entitled to it. (the actual use can be checked from e.g [1]) Documents show that Ladislaus the Posthumous, who died in 1457, never used it - he used the title "Duke of Austria". Ladislaus' sister elisabeth accordingly was never an archduchess. The title you have written in that article (and possibly to others) therefore show just bad scholarship, not any proper handling of history. Contrary to your conclusion "I do not see any problems with the referral", there are obvious problems in such referrals, as any objective historian understands. Shilkanni 09:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't quite understand why you are using this aggresive tone (Have you?? [2]) with me, or seem to be getting worked up about this issue. Of course the other articles will include the title "Archduke" in the entry as well, but that takes time and effort and I honestly have other things to do before I get to that. And thank you for that quick overview of history about the title. If you feel so strongly about the title in the introduction (even though she was apparently referred as such) feel free to remove it again, I won't argue about it further. Gryffindor 10:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is nothing aggressive. Only super-sensitive may imagine such. It is only natural to inquire whether the error is systematical, i.e repeated over a multitude of articles. Of course you are incorrect in alleging "she was referred as such" - there are no documents to show such (contemporaneous) referral. Shilkanni 10:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is only natural to ask whether the error is systematical, i.e repeated over a multitude of articles. Of course you are incorrect in alleging "she was referred as such" - there are no documents to show such (contemporaneous) referral. If you know any such documents, please kindly list them as sources, as actually is required by WP relevant policy. Shilkanni 10:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To you it may seem so but you are coming dangerously close, it is not necessary to use double signs in questions, so please be aware of Wikiquette. If you state that she was not "Archduchess" of Austria, then which title did she carry? Duchess? Gryffindor 14:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is most probable that she actually carried no formalized title before her marriage. You should understand the medieval culture and context: everyone there around knew that she was the daughter of the late king of at least three kingdoms, emperor-elect. She did not need any title... As far as I can surmise, her "title" presumably was "daughter of the king", daughter of emperor...
In those times, there was no widespread use of so-called courtesy titles - all titles were basically "substantive". German fiefholders shared their fiefs between male members of the dynasty, so each male's title (was it count, duke, whatever) actually signified a portion of the land itself and a substantive hold of the title (or its share). French and other Latin-based fiefs on the other hand went to one holder at a time, usually the eldest son. There, younger members of the family were just noble persons, not having a courtesy title. This all left daughters usually without any formal titles.
After her marriage, she naturally was the queen (consort) -i.e, regina, of Poland, grand duchess of Lithuania, etc.
You have to understand that the courtesy of allowing all children of a German noble (duke, archduke, count...) to use the same title, is a later courtesy tradition, and fully became in use typically as late as sometime in 18th century. It evolved as one of the results of fiefholder patriarchs stipulating a decree forbidding the division of their lands between sons which decrees took place in 17th and 18th centuries usually. In 16th century, counties and duchies were yet divided all the time (cf histories of Brunswick, Hesse, Saxony-Ernestines, Anhalt). When fathers stipulated the inheritance be indivisible and going to the eldest son only, the old custom of sharing continued in junior sons having a right to the title however, and that development quite allowed daughters to share the title too. At approximately same era (17th century, 18th century), some kingdoms already legislated formal princely titles to younger children of their monarchs.
I would say that even "duchess" is an anachronism regarding Elisabeth. Shilkanni 16:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_of_Austria_(1436–1505)&oldid=1136695923"