Talk:Franz Joseph I of Austria/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

archive

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 don't move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 14:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

  • Talk:Franz Joseph I of Austria - Franz Joseph I of Austria → Francis Joseph I of Austria - Rationale: In the effort for and for the sake of consistency, I feel that this page ought to be moved to the Anglicised form of his name as all other Austrian sovereigns are treated, with the exception of Charles, whom I have brought bring up for a requested move. Francis Joseph's page introduces him as such and has a section near the end of the page with forms of his name in various languages of the empire. The German-English form can be noted there, with English as the article title. Charles 19:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support As English wikipedia ought to use English forms and previous Habsburg Emperors are at "Francis" if named Franz in German. Charles 20:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Franz Joseph is better known by the German form of his name, which is Franz Joseph. Starting in the mid to late 19th century, there grew up a tendency in English to refer to continental monarchs by the native form of their name, rather than the anglicized form. The same inconsistency can be seen with Spanish monarchs (we have Ferdinand VII and Isabella II, but then switch to Alfonso XII); with Prussian/German monarchs, where we go from Frederick William IV to Wilhelm I; and so forth. Franz Joseph's grandfather is normally referred to as "Emperor Francis," while Franz Joseph himself is normally "Emperor Franz Joseph." As such, I oppose the move, until such time as we change the policy for monarchical naming to be consistent rather than based on common names. john k 21:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with John in this case. This particular emperor is rarely referred to as '"Francis and almost always as Franz. (I do usually see him as '"Franz Josef rather than Franz Joseph. What is the rationale for using the latter form? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Wikipedia usage should flow from the most common usage in other English-language historical texts. Checking the Amazon listing for books on the Emperior[1] it is clear that "Francis Joseph I" is the most common usage. When I checked my version of Encyclopedia Britannica, I saw the same thing -- he is listed as Francis Joseph I. --Elonka 00:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The most common form of the name used in English-language works is "Franz Joseph"; this is the form of name authorized by the (American) Library of Congress. There are a number of English-language works which use "Francis Joseph" (including several recent biographies), but these are still in a minority (but admittedly not an insignificant minority). Noel S McFerran 04:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The argument put forth sounds reasonable, but doesn't address how the proposal complies with the relevant Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) Lethiere 22:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per John K. and JTD. Palmiro | Talk 23:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Shilkanni 20:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Please note my above request reasoning, thanks. Charles 20:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
In terms of "Joseph" vs. "Josef," use of "Josef" seems to be an incorrect retro-Germanization of the name. In German, the English name Joseph can be spelled as either "Joseph" or "Josef." It is perhaps more normally spelled in the latter way, but not always. C.f. Joseph Goebbels, for instance. In the case of Franz Joseph, as far as I can gather, in German his name is always spelled "Franz Joseph." You can see this in the German wikipedia entry on him, and as I've noted in the past, I've looked at various German language sources, and they consistently use "Franz Joseph." As such, "Josef" seems to be a misspelling. As such, we shouldn't use it. john k 01:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Francis Joseph was also monarch of Hungary, where his name was officially Ferenc Joszef. And king in other titukar kingdoms, too, and of many nations. As I believe the English wikipedia should not be German-centric, I support the neutral name, that is in english. Shilkanni 20:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


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.

Older talk material

question about a picture

The other person in the second picture on the page looks like a girl, are you sure it's his great-grand-nephew?

Yes. Boys were often dressed that way, and wore their hair like that, in that time period. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

ordinal, ph vs. f

On wiki and most sources, a monarch is only referred to as 'I' when there has been a second holder of the office.

eg,

But Franz Josef referred to himself as "Franz Josef I" as his successor Karl called himself Karl I PMelvilleAustin 14:34 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

Well, they didn't know that the monarchy would be abolished soon, did they? --KF 14:41 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

That's correct, KF. Also sometimes monarchs and popes are proclaimed under an ordinal, even when they are the first with that name, eg, Juan Carlos I, Pope John Paul I, etc. But as they are the first, they are rarely referred to using the ordinal, unless it is important to distinguish them from a successor with the same name. Historians and people in general invariably refer to Queen Victoria, not Queen Victoria I, Franz Josef, not Franz Josef I, Louis Philippe, not Louis Philippe I, hence the naming convention in Wiki's use of the name minus the ordinal. Karl I is slightly more complicated, because he was 'Karl I' of Austria and 'Charles IV' of Hungary. As it is obviously necessary to use his ordinal in the second case, it makes sense to use the ordinal for both his titles for balance, though Karl of Austria is ok. However Franz Josef was the 'first' in both his kingdom and his empire, so an ordinal is unnecessary. JTD 22:45 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

I just checked this in the standard history of Austria (Erich Zöllner, Geschichte Österreichs. Von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart, 5th ed., Wien 1974). Surprisingly, Zöllner refers to him as Franz Joseph throughout the book. In the text the ordinal is only added when he is mentioned for the first time ("[...] bestieg der achtzehnjährige Erzherzog Franz [...] als Kaiser Franz Joseph I. den Habsburgerthron [...]"), but it is also used in the register and the family tree. --KF 23:17 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
Thomas Nipperdey also calls him "Franz Joseph" in his Deutsche Geschichte. I'm going to move to Franz Joseph of Austria. john 07:58, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
German Wikipedia also calls him Franz Joseph...I'm going to assume "Franz Josef" is just overenthusiastic anglophone regermanization... john 08:01, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Once again, his name in German is Franz Joseph. Just as we have Joseph Goebbels. Franz Josef is an error, not the German spelling. john 06:08, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

The fact that he is being called Franz Joseph is an English modernisation. Just take a look at the Hofburg Site... click on the Wedding Announcement, and you will in fact see that it is spelt Franz JoseF

Well, if it is a modernization, it is certainly not an English one. Thomas Nipperdey's standard German language history of Germany from 1800-1866, which I happen to have, calls him "Franz JosePH," as does the German wikipedia. john k 16:51, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

O.K., maybe on wiki that's right approach not to use the ordinal. But shouldn't WE also respect those millions of his (Franz Joseph's) contemporaries - my both grandfathers among them - who ALWAYS called him WITH the ordinal ? Moreover, wiki links are becoming more complicated when, absentmindedly and automatically, any writer from former Austro-Hungarian Empire successor states uses the title which is still in a living memory - being pushed into pupil's heads in History even now.

Perhaps a counter on wiki redirection page will indicate if the users are more often trying to find "Franz Joseph I" or "Franz Joseph of Austria". Radoneme, November 29, 2004

Franz Josef Land

Just wondering, anyone know why it was that Franz Josef Land in the Russian high arctic was named in his honor in 1873?

It was discovered by Austrian explorers but later annexed to Russia. Anglius

Kindness to Jews

I thought that Austria-Hungary was supposed to have been one of the most anti-Semitic nations upon the Continent (I am not writing this because I am particularly fond of the Jews). Anglius

In its last decades A-H got almost destroyed by wave of nationalism: every nation here defined itself against other nationalities, Jews being as one another nationality. Official goverment policy was liberal toward Jews. There were no large pogroms or violence or ghettos but economic nationalism thrived. Pavel Vozenilek 00:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I thank you for your information, Mr. Vozenilek. Anglius

Huh? You are not "particularly fond of the Jews"? What an odd statement. Are there other ethnic/religious groups that you are especially fond of? Why do you feel the need to make such a statement? At any rate, Hungary before World War I was certainly not terribly anti-semitic - the Magyars liked the Jews well enough, since the Jews of Hungary (along with the Germans) were the only ethnic group willing to assimilate. It was more complicated in the Austrian half. Vienna exhibited a great deal of anti-semitism, but this was not officially sanctioned. Franz Joseph refused to confirm Karl Lueger, the anti-semitic Christian Social leader, as mayor of Vienna for some time, although this was not so much because of his anti-semitism as because of his crassness and populism (of which, however, his anti-semitism was a part). john k 06:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I merely meant, Mr. Kenney, that I was not writing that out of irony or in defence of Jews. I was not attempting to say that I am an anti-Semite or a philo-Semite. Please do not become so exited. Anglius
Why do you feel it necessary to preface a historical inquiry by a statement that you are "not particularly fond" of one of the parties to the historical inquiry? Why didn't you note the extent of your fondness for Austria-Hungary? Or for turn of the century Europe? Or for Franz Joseph? When you inquire about something in an article about English history, do you note your lack of fondness for the English? What on earth was your purpose in this statement except to say, "I'm saying this, but I'm not one of those people, of course, so you can take me seriously"? Whether intentionally or not, your statement was pretty clearly an anti-semitic one - it suggests that Jews (or those "particularly fond of them") cannot be taken seriously in discussions of anti-semitism - that only those "not particularly fond" of Jews can take part in such a discussion. Can't you see how this would be offensive? john k 16:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
It was not my intention to offend any of the Jewry in that sentence, and I can see why they might be annoyed. However, Mr. Kenney, if I may politely inquire, why would you become so upset unless you personally are a Hebrew (not to sound "shallow"-minded)? Anglius
A Hebrew? Are you for real? What difference does it make if I am Jewish or not? Your statement was generally offensive. john k 05:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
John K is absolutely right on this point. Whether or not you meant it, Anglius, the statement that you are "not particularly fond of Jews" comes across as quite anti-semitic; it sounds like you are trying to be diplomatic in saying you can't stand them. Additionally, it is also considered anti-semitic to refer to all Jews as "Hebrews". A Jew whose ancestors have lived in America or Europe for centuries is certainly not a "Hebrew". Additionally, saying that John K must be Jewish simply because he did not like your patently anti-semitic statement is yet another anti-semitic statement. People can be against prejudice or antisemitism without being Jewish. Please stop showing us your closed-minded prejudice and post your propaganda elsewhere. And three cheers for John K for speaking out against prejudice.RockStarSheister (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

His nickname in Italy

Hi my friends, first of all sorry for my poor English, I'm not able to speak it very well because I'm italian. I just wanted to tell a thing that in my opinion can be added in this article. Franz Joseph in Italy was known also as "Cecco Peppe", this is because the translation of his name in italian is Francesco Giuseppe ( Franz = Francesco and Joseph = Giuseppe ), the abbreviations of Francesco and Giuseppe in italian are respectively Cecco and Peppe, that's why he was called like that. He was called with that nickname in particular by italian troops who fought during "La Grande Guerra" ( this is how we italians named the WWI ). There is also a pacifist poetry written by famous italian poet Trilussa where Franz Joseph is called Cecco Peppe. See [2]. If you all are not agaist, I can add this thing to the article. Regards!

I have put it there together with a Czech nickname. I think it should be on the page. Aloysius

Franz Josef vs. Franz Joseph

The title says Joseph, the first line says Josef, the majority of sentences in the article says Joseph, and the caption of his picture says Josef. Come on, people, let's pick one for coherence's sake. Porcher 05:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

As I said, it's "Joseph" - this is what the German wikipedia has. john k 05:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see the change was made some months back by our resident anti-semite Anglius. john k 05:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Please pardon me if I am intruding, gentlemen, but I felt that that was the traditional German spelling(I believe that it was, at leasst that time-period). Not to be impolite, please do not call me something, Mr. Kenney, that you really do not possess evidence to rightfully do so. --Anglius 01:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
No it is not. An name calling seen here brings nothing useful to encyclopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 06:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I thank you, Mr. Vozenilik.--Anglius 01:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Trying to identify an emperor

"Serious pecuniary losses led [ Karl Friedrich Mohr ] at the age of fifty-seven to become a privatdozent in Bonn, where in 1867 he was appointed, by the direct influence of the emperor, extraordinary professor of pharmacy."

Emperor? There was no German Kaiser until 1871. There had been no Holy Roman Emperor since 1806. This would have to be Franz Joseph I of Austria. Does that make sense to influence an appointmnent in Bonn? Cutler 12:06, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

This would be very, very unlikely. Pavel Vozenilek 21:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Seems likely this is an anachronism, and that the King of Prussia, who would shortly become German Emperor, is meant. john k 21:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Slight Disambiguation

As Franz_Joseph redirects here, I added a link to Franz_Joseph_(artist). 161.11.130.249 18:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

cluttered look of article

These new templates for the style are terrible. Although well-intentioned, it has now given the article a very cluttered look. There has to be a better solution to this. Gryffindor 15:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I have moved the templates a to the bottom, hopefully this will be in order now from its appearance? Gryffindor 15:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

rename Franz Joseph I of Austria-Hungary

Shouldn't the correct name of the article be called Franz Joseph I of Austria-Hungary considering it was a dual-monarchy, made up of two parts Cisleithanien and Transleithanien? The Hungarian part should not be made felt that is it being neglected. This is what the German-language Wikipedia calls him and it would only be correct, as opposed to his predecessors who were really only rulers of one Austrian Empire, with Hungary only being a part of it like the other Kronländer... Gryffindor 21:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


He ruled as F.J. of Austria, though, until 1867, it means not negligible 19 years of his long reign, but the dualism still was the main political change of his era so I go in for the rename! Aloysius

He was Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary. We generally list the highest title. Also, this would make an awkward case for his successor, who was Charles I of Austria, but Charles IV of Hungary. Best to just leave it with Austria, which was his highest title. We have, for instance Charles I of England, even though he might be at Charles I of England and Scotland. john k 22:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, you have convinced me;-) You are true. Aloysius

Hm, difficult case. This is not a question of listing his highest title (which is Emperor and I agree with only listing the highest), but a question of the correct country name. Before the "Ausgleich" with the Hungarians, the term of the Empire was generally known as "Kaisertum Österreich" or something similar, often translated as "Austrian Empire". After the Ausgleich however, the official name was "Österreich-Ungarn", Austria-Hungary (or Austro-Hungarian Empire, but simply known as Austria-Hungary). The German-language Wikipedia has him listed as "Karl I. (Österreich-Ungarn)" He was King Charles IV of Hungary (amongst many other titles), but he was the first Charles of the common Austria-Hungary. Correct me if I'm wrong but in this case, the counting of the Emperors of Austria became synonymous with the Emperor of Austria-Hungary. In that case "Charles I of Austria-Hungary" would not be wrong either, because the other Habsburg Emperors Charles before him were Holy Roman Emperors. Gryffindor 12:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Gryffindor, this is about his highest title, which was "Emperor of Austria," not "Emperor of Austria-Hungary." There was no such thing as an Emperor of Austria-Hungary - the man was known as Emperor of Austria in Cisleithania, and Apostolic King of Hungary in Transleithania. And the whole monarchy's official name was not "Austria-Hungary," but "The Kingdoms and Lands Represented in the Imperial Council and the Lands of the Holy Hungarian Crown of St. Stephen." It was known as "Austria-Hungary," for short, but this was not the official name. And there certainly wasn't such a thing as an Emperor of Austria-Hungary. john k 15:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no mention to his Emperor brother, Maximilian. I think there should be. Rocer

Feel free to add it. john k 15:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Well then you just agreed with me that the country's name is "Austria-Hungary". I am not going to start a renaming war here. But if you are going to go by "highest", he was ruler of Austria-Hungary. Of course he was Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary, King of Bohemia, etc etc... but he was ruler of a place that was called Austria-Hungary. I am not proposing to rename the article "Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria-Hungary" but "Franz Joseph I of Austria-Hungary" since that was the name of the empire, you agree. There are many examples of countries that have a double name. Gryffindor 08:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

His highest title was Emperor of Austria, so he's Franz Joseph I of Austria. Also, shouldn't it actually be titled "Francis Joseph", since this is the English-language Wiki site, and the translation of "Franz" is "Francis", as shown in the Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor and Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor articles? -Alex 12.220.157.93 04:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC).

I have a beer stein given to Franz Josef 1 for his 80th. birthday celebration and its incribed "Kaiser of Austria King of Hungary Franz Josef the 1st" translated from the German.

Mistresses

Perhaps some mention should be made of Franz's mistresses, Katharina Schratt the actress and Anna Nahowski?


Reordering

I tried to reorder a little the page. Perhaps the biography could be fleshed up a little more (perhaps someone could translate from the German page ?). I also removed the following sentences:

Rudolf's killing of the Baroness Vetsera was an extremely grim chapter in the long line of outbreaks of mental instability in the Habsburg Dynasty caused by their long history of inbreeding. The younger brother to Emperor Franz Joseph, the Archduke Viktor Ludwig, spent most of his life exiled on the island of Capri, following a series of scandals involving dressing up in women's clothes and molesting his military aides.

this breaks the flow of the biography, talking about relatives. It has been suggested that Franz Joseph himself was senile, or perhaps slightly insane in his old age. Perhaps this sentence could fit in a separate, dedicated section.

I edited the sentence into the Mayerling article StefanoC 08:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


Notwithstanding the scandals, there were times when Franz Joseph took firm moral stands. When Pope Pius IX detained the six-year-old Jewish boy Edgardo Mortara on account of the claim that a housekeeper had secretly baptized him, Emperor Franz Joseph sent the Pope a plea to return the child to his parents. The Pope refused his request.
When World War I erupted, Austria-Hungary fought in alliance with Germany, but the Austro-Hungarian Army proved ill-prepared and ill-equipped. Franz Joseph's conservatism was partly to blame: when presented with the suggestion that the army should acquire a newly-developed mechanical weapon, namely tanks, he famously retorted: "Absolutely not. The horses will be startled!".

These two sentences belong perhaps to a section about Franz Joseph's politics.

StefanoC 08:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The "horses" quote was not sourced. Fr. J. I was long term ruler of important power and there is lot of more important information than funny, unsourced quips attributed to him. Pavel Vozenilek 13:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Have to agree that this biography badly needs to be fleshed out. Looks more like a Geneology page and pedants corner (over classification of names) than a serious encyclopaedia entry (Simon G)

Headline text

Field Marshall of Great Britain

Franz Joseph had been categorised as British Field Marshal Category:British Field Marshals, but this was only honorary - see [3] so he was removed from this category. (He wasn't British either - I beleieve that only British people shopuld be in the British Field Marshals category). Diverman 01:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It was just as honorary as the rank of (British) Field Marshall held by King Alfonso XIII of Spain, King Albert I and King Leopold I of Belgium, King Ernst August I of Hanover, King William II of the Netherlands, King Mahendra of Nepal, and Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar - all of whom are listed in this category. What makes Franz Joseph any different? The category "British Field Marshalls" clearly includes honorary appointments, so why not include Franz Joseph? Noel S McFerran 04:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

SPELLING OF FRANZ JOSEF 1

There seems to be a bit of a problem in which way his name should be spelled. Well I have a large pewter beer stein which was given to him on 15 Aug 1910 at his 80th. birthday celebration, The engraved inscription reads "Zur Erinnerung an die Vorfeierdes 80 Gegurts festes Seiner Majesfatdes Kaisers von Oesterreich, Konigs von Ungarn Franz Josef 1". I would think that a present given to the king would surely have his name spelled correctly. This stein also has engraved on it "gegeben von der Unions braurerei Schulein & Co. Aktiengesellschaft". The family who gave this stein to Franz Josef 1, were Jewish and emigrated to the US aroung 1933.

As I've said before, all modern German sources that I've seen use "Franz Joseph." I cannot further explain the discrepancy, save to suggest that it is possible that there was not a single settled spelling at the time, and that "Franz Joseph" is the post facto agreement of the German orthographic community. Alternately, the stein could be wrong. john k 17:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I personally believe that is can be avoided with using the anglicisation of his name, which is Francis Joseph I. That way it is clear and doesn't favour one version of the German over another. The first line reads with his English name with the German in paretheses. Charles 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
What is wrong with "favoring" the German name used by German language historians? john k 21:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I personally don't think it is wrong at all, I think it is just easier to avoid it altogether and use the just-as-common English form of the Emperor's name. Charles 21:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Names in other Languages

It's surely a goog idea to make a list how Franz Joseph was named in the many languages spoken in his empire. But I don't see any sense behind translations in Spanish or Icelandic. What do you think?--Hannesde Correct me! 11:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that only languages that were actually official in one province or another should be mentioned. So German, Czech, Italian, Hungarian, Polish, Ukrainian, Croatian - yes. I'm less certain on Romanian, Slovak, Serbian, and Slovene. Certainly not Spanish or Icelandic. john k 01:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I would keep every language spoken in his empire. What I dislike is mentioning those languages not related to Austroa Hungary at all.--Hannesde Correct me! 13:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

His name in Spanish is Emperador Francisco José de Austria. His younger brother was Maximiliano de Haubsburgo, Emperador de México.

Revision, and Reign length

hello all, I'm procrastinating from revising my dissertation proposal by working on some major revision of this article. So far I've only gotten up to Franz Joseph's marriage, but I intend to greatly expand the article as a whole. As a source, I'm using Alan Palmer's Twilight of the Habsburgs: The Life and Times of Emperor Francis Joseph, which came out in 1994, and is, I think, the most recent biography of Franz Joseph to be published.

A question, though - the material at the top of the article about the length of his reign doesn't make any sense. Johannes of Liechtenstein was German-speaking, and so far as I can tell, is "known to have at least nominally ruled." So why is he being ignored here? Franz Joseph clearly reigned for a shorter period of time than him. Another ruler who reigned for longer than Franz Joseph is Karl Friedrich of Baden, who reigned, but with various different titles, from 1738 to 1811 - 73 years, which seems, in fact, to actually be the longest reign in European history. What is usually said about Franz Joseph is that he reigned for the longest in full sovereignty - i.e. there was never a regent, he was always in full power, for the whole 68 years. This is, for instance, the claim made on his behalf by Palmer. This is also usually qualified by meaning only kings and emperors, rather than princes, margraves, and so forth, as there are so many of the latter that it gets difficult (the Liechtenstein one probably still beats Franz Joseph, if he has to be included in the list). It's worth noting that Franz Joseph only became the seniormost European monarch in 1901, on Queen Victoria's death (although he was the senior male monarch - or at least monarch of the level of king or emperor - from as early as King Leopold of Belgium's death in 1865), and that he was only the oldest Habsburg for three years, from the death of his older contemporary Archduke Rainer in 1913. Anyway, I intend to continue to expand the article, but it's quite likely I won't get around to it. john k 05:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of a picture

According to the opinion of User:Polarlys of Wikimedia Commons the old photograph of "Francis Joseph & Otto" may meet the criteria for speedy deletion.--213.47.172.153 04:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What bullshit. The image is from before 1916. This kind of thing is outrageous. john k 23:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Children with other wifes ?

In some books you can read, that Franz Joseph (I.) had children from Anna Nahowski (a young housewife) - 1 son - or Theresia Pointinger (a farmers wife) - 2 sons and 2 daughters - and accepted them as his own children ?

What do you mean about this "facts" ?

--AndreaMimi (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Last Words

According to Horthy, his last words were "I haven't finished my work yet", after ordering his servants to wake him up at 3.30 a.m. (found in Horthy's Memoirs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.174.61 (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Honourary Commands

Franc Iosi apparently had honourary command of 11 regiments within the British/Imperial Russian/German Empire, Can anyone out there supply the article with the other 9 non-Austro-Hungarian commands? Boothferry (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


Do you know that ..

.. Franz Joseph outlived a lot of his relatives (like Queen Victoria outlived her children, grand - and greatgrandchildren) :

1 sister , Maria Anna Karolina (1835-1840)

1 daugher, Sophie Friederike (1855-1857)

1 son, Rudolf (1858-1889, killed himself)

1 grandchild, Agnes (1911-1911), (stillborn daughter from Marie Valerie and her husband (second cousin) Franz Salvator)

2 great-grandchildren, Gisela (1896-1901) and Mathias (1904-1905), (children from his granddaughter Auguste of Bavaria, married Joseph August from Hungary and had six children (including the two of them you died in childhood).

Ressourche: Martha Schad, Kaiserin Elisabeth und ihre Töchter (Empress Elisabeth and her daughters), Piper 2006 (German book)

--AndreaMimi (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


Lothringen

How come that the name of the ruling house is represented incorrectly? Of course he was an offspring of the house of Habsburg-Lothringen but i could not find that in the article and didn't want to start changing around. So, any ideas how to work this in? --Schmutzman (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

failures of Austrian external policy

The last sentence of the second paragraph of the "Biography" section currently reads:

However, the 1850s witnessed several failures of Austrian external policy - the Crimean War and break-up with Russia, Austro-Sardinian War of 1859 against armies of the House of Savoy, and Napoleon III.

This lists three policy failures: 1. Crimean War and break-up with Russia 2. Austro Sardinian War of 1859 3. Napoleon III

Is that intentional? It looks to me like it's missing an "and" -- in other words, it's meant to list TWO failures, with the second being the war against the armies of the House of Savoy and Napoleon III. If that's what it's meant to say, it should be more like,

However, the 1850s witnessed several failures of Austrian external policy - the Crimean War and break-up with Russia; and the Austro-Sardinian War of 1859 against the armies of the House of Savoy and Napoleon III.

The original authors knew European history and I know English grammar -- can we team up on this?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.242.168 (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Potential Brides

According to Twilight of the Habsburgs: The Life and Times of Emperor Francis Joseph by Alan Palmer, FJ has other potential brides before Nené. They include an early romance with Elisabeth of Modena, widow of the Duke of Modena. He also was attracted to Princess Anna of Prussia during a visit to Berlin. Another potential bride was daughter of another of his mother's sisters, Princess Sidonia of Saxony1.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cladeal832 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

film clip

As far as I can tell, this video clip is in the public domain, and could be used on wikipedia. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fantastic that we have this film clip included in the article. Thank you for finding it! I hope you are still contributing early film clips like this to our articles. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

King of Croatia

Unless you wish for the whole grand title here to go into the infobox then I would suggest you drop the Croatia bit as unecessary for his main title. 194.66.0.128 (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Polargeo (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've done that now, and await fireworks. Si Trew (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Names in other languages

While trying to respect previous editors' work, I've taken WP:BOLD and changed format (not the content) of the names in other languages.

  • I've put it as a bulleted list – this is because as a prose list it is hard to tell which language which transliteration belongs to. (For the same reason I've changed the format in the lead, but not the order.)
  • I've reformatted so they are all the same format, and put them all into {{lang-xx}} tags. (Same in lead.)
  • I've put them all into alphabetical order. I can see there may have been an attempt to order them on e.g. those in use within his realm, but this was not at all consistent. It seems to me using alpha order is the most neutral.
  • I've removed Croatia from the first sentence of the lead: his full title is given at the linked article, and he was also king of all kinds of other places that were within Austria-Hungary; here we are just stating his title not a list of states. Another editor had done the same in the Infobox a little earlier.

I realise any or all of these edits may be contentious, but we are here to give people information, and an unseparated list of language-name pairs is hard to divulge. I could understand there being a use for putting the "most common" or "most important" languages first, if anyone were likely to agree which were the most common or important. The Hungarian in the lead seemed to have gone missing too (the language was there but not the actual name), adding to the confusion.

Also, I've cut English from the list. We must assume his name in English is what the article title says it is (not anglicised to "Francis").

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"Francis Joseph" is frequently used in English; it ought not be removed from the article out of some idea that because the German "Franz Joseph" is more common in English than the anglicized form, "we must assume" that the anglicized form doesn't exist. john k (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

resolving difficult wording

Existing wording: Almost immediately, Charles Albert was decisively beaten by Radetzky at Novara, and forced both to sue for peace and to abdicate his throne.

Suggested wording: Almost immediately, Charles Albert was decisively beaten by Radetzky at Novara and forced to sue for peace and to abdicate his throne.

Removal of “both” immensely helps the reader understand who is doing what. If the wording is not changed, the reader is puzzled by "both", wondering whether it refers to two people (those being forced, which makes no sense) or two clauses: "sue for peace and to abdicate his throne". After much thought, I finally figured the latter was intended. Thus, remove "both" as both unnecessary and confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruffwiki (talk • contribs) 20:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

New Picture

I would suggest that we change the image of the emperor at the top of the page. Is there perhaps a better/more flattering image?--Karl franz josef (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a beauty contest. Si Trew (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
True, but if his wife Elizabeth of Bavaria is show at around 18, it would be nice if his picture is similar/consistent. Peacedance (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifty-six years of his political career missing

The is a section entitled Imperial absolutism, 1848–1860, which is resonably well written. But after that there is not a word on what sort of rule there was for the remaining 56 years of his reign. That is rather a large and serious hole! Is there anybody watching this with the knowledge to write even a brief section on the rest of his political career? Scolaire (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

First?

Why did he carry the title Franz Josef the First, when there was no future emperor of the same name? Are you sure this is correct? Valetude (talk) 08:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

In short; a monarch can give themselves any number they like; it doesn't neccesarily follow that 'there have been x number of monarchs with this name, therefore this monarch should have this number', because this is part of the royal prerogative. Yes, it usually follows the convention that 'if there have been x number of monarchs, you have that number after your name', but sometimes monarchs go against this convention, often for political or historical considerations.

For example, there has only ever been one monarch of Australia called 'Elizabeth'; yet the current Queen of Australia is called 'Elizabeth II', the current King of Sweden is Carl XVI Gustaf, despite the fact there have only been nine Kings of Sweden called Carl, the first King of Italy was called Vittorio Emmanuele II; despite being the first King of Italy of this name, the first (and only) Emperor of Germany called Friedrich was Friedrich III, and so on.

To wit: if Franz Joseph I decided he the Franz Joseph I, then he was, just as much as if he had decided (for whatever reason) that he wanted to be called Franz Joseph II or Franz Joseph III.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a wikipedia article on regnal numbers; "the first" is sometimes but not always used by the first person to have that name. I notice mention (above, regarding Australia) of Elizabeth II -- that is using the regnal number of the BRITISH queen; apparently, British domains did not include Australia during the time of the 1st Queen Elizabeth (who was retroactively given the "I" in 1952). As for Franz Joseph of Austria, sometimes I see the "I" and sometimes I do not. Because the Austrian empire was broken up at end of what we now call World War I, there wasn't much chance for another Franz Joseph to become ruler.

'Mistress' debunked

In 1885 Franz Joseph met Katharina Schratt, a leading actress of the Vienna stage, and she became his mistress.

I don't believe it's ever been established that they had a physically intimate relationship. Frederic Morton, in A Nervous Splendor: Vienna, 1888-1889 (Penguin, 1980), and Thunder at Twilight: Vienna 1913/1914 (Scribner's, 1989), asserts the relationship remained platonic. On page 85 of the latter, he writes: "...Franz Joseph and Frau Schratt continued to be lovers in everything but raw fact. They never met between the sheets."

Our entry on Katharina Schratt describes her as a "confidante" of Franz Joseph. German Wiki's article on her refers only to their "friendship" (die Freundschaft zwischen Katharina Schratt und Kaiser Franz Joseph).

I have made the appropriate changes to the text here and at Katharina Schratt. Sca (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 09 November 2014

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Franz Joseph I of Austria → Franz Joseph – He was not only the ruler of Austria. I should think his rule of Austria-Hungary is more significant than his rule prior to 1867. The proposed name is already a redirect here. I dropped the numeral because there is no Franz Joseph II, but I'd have no problem keeping it. Srnec (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose. The name of the article is fine as it is. Calling it merely "Franz Joseph" it's definitely odd. Are we going to repeat the dumb Queen Victoria? Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor was just as known as Carlos I of Spain, are we going to change that as well? Monarchs' articles should have the domain designation on their titles. Either way, the Austrian emperors' domains were generally called "Austria" for simplicity sake from that time to the present day. What you should be worried is to improve the article and bring it to Featured Article level. --Lecen (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Charles I of England and Charles II of England were not just kings of England. Philip II of Spain and Philip III of Spain were not just kings of Spain. The current abberation with recent British monarchs is not something we need to make worse by spreading it. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, if anything, it should be moved to Francis Joseph I of Austria or Francis Joseph I of Austria and Hungary. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, please. Get rid of the ridiculous extensions of the names! Red Slash 22:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it is usual.--Yopie (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a borderline case, but pre-emptive disambiguation of monarchs is not to be abandoned lightly, even if they are the primary or only meaning, and I agree that we have gone too far with recent British monarchs. Although he is the best-known Franz Joseph, he is not quite a household name these days, and we also have Franz Joseph II of Liechtenstein, who reigned for 51 years and only died in 1989. PatGallacher (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Franz Joseph used to be a disambiguation page [4]. It was merged to Franz Joseph (disambiguaiton) in 2007 [5], so per WP:MAD the edit history needs to be kept around, so if this is moved, the destination's edit history from 2007 and older needs to be preserved, such as moving the page to a placeholder location (ie. Franz-Joseph (something with no significant edit history) or somesuch) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I thought "of Austria" referred to his birthplace, not his domain? --173.174.98.73 (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

German Name

as you can see reading the German article, his German name was Franz Joseph, with ph, not f. --W-j-s (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Guessing game

Q: If I moved John, King of England to John I, King of England, how long would it be before someone reverted it?
A: Not long.
Q: Why?
A: Because there never was a John II, King of England?
Voice from on high: VERY GOOD!
Q: So, why do these articles exist? John II of France, John II of Portugal, John II Komnenos. Hint: Don't spend too long on this question.
A: I'm not absolutely sure, but please continue. I like this game!
Q: OK, why are all the following links red? NB Don't guess. Just search Wikipedia.

NB I'm sure dedicated fans of nomenclature will have thought about these redirects:

But the following are definitely and incontrovertibly red, and will remain so for a day or two.

A:                                                                                                                                                        Hmmm.

So, my darlings, here's the 64,000-dollar question:

Q: Why is there no article Franz Joseph II of Austria, and even if I wanted to create it, why would I not find a single Reliable Source™ referring to such a person?
A: Because there never was such a person, or anyone who styled themselves thus?
Voice from on high: VERY GOOD!

So..... Guess my proposal. Hint: click the Edit button. MinorProphet (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. It is neither amusing nor convincing. Surtsicna (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
And also just wrong. He used the numeral himself, as can be seen on this 1861 thaler: FRANZ JOSEPH I V[on] G[ottes] G[naden] KAISER V[on] OESTERREICH. Opera hat (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I was hasty and wrong, and I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for my intemperate and disruptive behaviour. I hope it won't happen again. PS I just love being corrected. MinorProphet (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Franz Joseph I 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Third longest-reigning monarchs

His 68-year reign is the third-longest in the recorded history of Europe (after those of Louis XIV of France and Johann II, Prince of Liechtenstein).[25]

This is wrong now because of recent changes to List of longest-reigning monarchs which counts minor noble/princelings within the Holy Roman Empire making Bernard VII, Lord of Lippe the longest reigning European monarch now. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
A nobleman (duke, count etc) isn't really the same kind as a king though. Bernard VII was subject to other and superior princes in his time, according to the feudal hierarchy. In European terms (and this includes Britain) kings, grand dukes and emperors who rule clearly independent realsm are different from counts, baronets, "ordinary" dukes, etc, and only the former group are seen as actual monarchs. :)83.254.142.244 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Fake officeholder infobox heading

@Colonestarrice: Do you keep reverting because I removed your carefully crafted fake officeholder infobox heading? Jay D. Easy (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Franz_Joseph_I_of_Austria/Archive_1&oldid=1138853357"