Talk:Franz Joseph I of Austria
From Academic Kids
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,
- King Juan Carlos of Spain
- Queen Anne of Great Britain
- Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom
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 (http://www.hofburg-wien.at/en/site/publicdir/0103060000_6c.php)... 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
