Talk:Luxembourg

Hm... Are these nicknames true or just vandalism? Bokassa particularly sounds funny. Muhamedmesic 20:43, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

both actually. They are the nicknames used in the satirical weekly Feierkrop (http://www.feierkrop.lu). pir 21:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

there are some categories "luxembourgish people" but I always thought luxembourgeois was more appropriate? Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:08, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you do a google search (restricted to supposedly english websites) for "luxembourgeois" you get 20'000 hits, and the vast majority of these seem to be in French ("luxembourgeois" seems to be based on the common misconception that French is the native language in Luxembourg) ; "luxembourgish" gives 100'000 hits (usually for the Luxembourgish language. A third possibility is "luxembourgian" (6'000 hits). All these sound weird and are best avoided if at all possible. According to the the Oxford Dictionary, the correct adjective is "Luxembourg" : so it should probably be "Luxembourg people" - pir 23:23, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Contents

1 Luxembourg as a principality 2 Spelling 3 EC Presidency 4 Flag 5 Language 6 Echternach 7 Soviet Republic? 8 Merge from Luxembourg

Luxembourg as a principality

According to principality, "A principality is a form of sovereign state or territory ceremonially led or directly governed by a monarch with the title of prince or princess. Another type of principality called a grand duchy is led by a monarch called a duke or duchess."

Constitutional Monarchy and Principality are not mutually exclusive categories IMO. A Google search for Luxembourg and principality returns rather more hits than for Luxembourg and constiturional monarchy. There are also more than 100 hits for "Principality of Luxembourg". If you think the category is disputed, say so rather than removing it (cf. Wales). Rls 15:41, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The google hits are the product of misconceptions based on ignorance of Luxembourg's history and political life. Luxembourg is not a Principality, because the Grand Duke plays no role in the political and public life. This is as a result of the crisis after WW1. During WW1 Luxembourg was occupied by the Germans (Luxembourg was officially a neutral country at the time, and the German occupiers allowed the government and Grand Duchess Marie Adelaide to remain and carry out their functions) and Grand Duchess Maire Adelaide was behaving rather too friednly towards the occupiers. After the liberation, Marie Adelaide was forced to abdicate and the constitution was modified so that henceforth sovereignty was vested in the people of Luxembourg. In a referendum in 1919, the people of Luxembourg decided to keep the monarchy, and the royals decided to keep out of public affairs. For more info you could check [1] (http://worldatwar.net/nations/luxembourg/narrative.html) and [2] (http://worldatwar.net/nations/luxembourg/timeline.html). The Grand-Duke's job is to shake hands with visiting foreign leaders, put his sig on laws made by Parliament, tell the leader of the party that comes first in elections to form a government, give a well-meaning TV speech for Christmas, live in a castle, draw a lot of money for all his hard work and for the rest to keep his trap shut. Basically the Grand-Duke hasn't got anything to say. So the correct characterisation of the state form is Constitutional Monarchy, and Luxembourg is not a Principality any more than e.g. the UK is. As for Wales, most Welsh reject that it is a principality, and it should be removed from the category. - pir 17:04, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From principality (emphasis mine): A principality is a form of sovereign state or territory ceremonially led or directly governed by a monarch with the title of prince or princess. A particular type of principality called a Grand Duchy is led by a monarch called a duke or duchess.

From your description, that doesn't sound too far off. In any case, it seems to be popularly classified as a principality, so I think the category is appropriate. A note about its disputed status in the article would seem to be the best way of resolving this.

BTW I am Welsh and while I'm not keen on the label, I have to concede that Wales is technically a principality (or at least is popularly described as a principality) having as it does a (albeit imposed) prince as ceremonial leader. Rls 20:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If the text at Principality were true, you would of course be correct. But it most certainly is not correct. A country is a principality if and only if the sovereign bears the title of prince (see [3] (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=principality&x=0&y=0)). And the grand-duchy-ruled-by-duke part is bogus, too. If the sovereign is a duke, it's a duchy (there are no sovereign duchies left). If the sovereign is a grand duke, it's a grand duchy (Luxembourg is the only one left). If the sovereign is a king, it's a kingdom. And so on. Luxembourg's sovereign is a grand duke, so it's a grand duchy, not a principality. And no, it doesn't have anything to do with the sovereign having power or not. See the table at Monarch. -- Jao 07:04, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

What if sovereignty is vested in the people rather than the monarch? - pir 09:02, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is some confusion over what is a prince though. From the OED [4] (http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00188701?query_type=word&queryword=prince&edition=2e&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=1&search_id=A1gu-5J9XqK-3269&hilite=00188701), the word may be used as a title of courtesy in certain connexions to a duke, marquis, or earl. Also, The ruler of a principality or small state actually, nominally, or originally, a feudatory of a king or emperor -- it seems to me that Luxembourg could be described as a principality. I've now updated principality -- see what you think. I now think Grand Duchy and/or Duchy could be a category on their own, possibly subcategorised within Principality. Rls 15:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The appropriate category is constitutional monarchy, not principality. That's the term which is always used for the state form in relevant publications. This is important, because sovereignty is vested in the people of Luxembourg, who chose in a referendum to keep the monarchy, but the monarch only has symbolic and no political power, his power are limited in the constitution. If you want to create the Grand Duchy category for just a single article, that's fair enough, but please make it a subcategory of constitutional monarchy and not principality. - pir 16:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are articles on states that no longer exist that are Grand Duchies, so it wouldn't be a single article category -- and many of them were not constitutional monarchies. I see no reason though why the article shouldn't be under both the Monarchies category (or Consitutional Monarchies if it is ever created) as it is currently and Principalities/Grand Duchies. What do you think of the revised principality article? After some googling it seems to me that "principality" is sometimes used as an umbrella term. Rls 17:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I grew up and lived in Luxembourg for 20 years and I didn't come across the idea that Luxembourg might be a principality even once. That is the reason why I'm very much opposed to including it in the category "principality", and I don't find your defence here convincing. With the demise of the feudal system, the arrival of democracy and the downgrading of monarchs to mere symbols of national independence, I really can't see the use of distinguishing between states that are kingdoms, duchies, grand-duchies and principalities. Had we been writing Wikipedia 300 years ago it would have been informative, today it is irrelevant and anachronystic. Thus, constitutional monarchy is the most appropriate characterisation of the state of Luxembourg (and other surviving European monarchies): it tells the reader that the people of Luxembourg decided to keep the monarch rather than chop his head off, but that he hasn't got anything to say because his power is limited by a constitution. (In that sense there is actually a very big difference between being categorised as a "principality" and a "constitutional monarchy".) That is all that matters nowadays, and there is really very little difference between the the state form of Luxembourg and e.g. Belgium or the UK (although AFAIK, sovereignty is not vested in the English and Welsh, who are still subjects of HRM). I don't quite understand what you want to achieve with your categorisation drive of principalities and grand-duchies (although I can see the point with historical examples).

As for you suggestion that Grand-Duchies are somehow a subgroup of principalities, I'm not very convinced (my Oxford dictionary doesn't say anything of the sort, I checked German and French Wikipedias and they contained no hint either), but I'm not very knowledgeable in these aristocratic matters (it may be more of a question of sloppy use of the English language) so I won't revert your edits to the principality article as the new statement isn't too strong. - pir 23:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to "achieve" anything other than accuracy. Someone wanting to research e.g. the history of grand duchies would naturally expect to find Luxembourg in the list. Anyway, I was going to add a grand ducheys category, but checking the other articles that would be in the list reveals that several of them now exist as something else -- so the category does mostly reduce to a single article (there would have to be an "ex-grand ducheys" cat or something...) I've therefore decided not to bother, and removed Luxembourg from the Principality category too. Rls 22:26, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I completely agree with you on accuracy, and I also agree that from the historical perspective Cat:Grand-Duchies is the most accurate, but maintain that for the contemporary form of state Cat:Constitutional Monarchy is the most accurate. - pir 09:16, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Spelling

Excuse my ignorance, but what's the secret plan behind spelling the Lëtzebuergesch name and motto differenty here and there? --Glimz 00:38, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Corrected

EC Presidency

Not that I know anything about the subject, but this line is difficult

It was given the honour to provide the first President of the European Commission, former Prime Minister Jacques Santer. The current Prime Minister, Jean-Claude Juncker follows that tradition.

This wording suggests to me that Santer was the first President of the EC, and that Juncker is the current President. But the article President of the European Union makes lists Santer as the EC's 9th President, and does not mention Juncker at all. Could this be clarified by someone who understands the discrepancy? -Joshuapaquin 00:34, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Problem possibly solved in today's edit? On September 10, 2004 Mr Juncker became the semi-permanent President of the group of finance ministers from the 12 countries that share the euro, a role dubbed "Mr Euro". -Joshuapaquin 05:17, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Glad I could help.

Flag

I changed the flag back to the old one to keep it mor accurate. user:nicksukh

Language

Can somebody tell me what language is spoken in luxembourg? I read somewhere the official language is Letzeburgish( sorry for spelling) . I mean french, german , english, i get it but what do the people speak? If i were in Luxembourg city and wanted to go to public washrooms, what language would you suggest me using? 23:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)Xhami23:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That strongly depends on which people you incounter. There are for example 106000 people coming from abroad every day to work in Luxembourg. They will of course most likely speak their motherlanguage which will be in most cases French follwed by German. The foreign population can be divided into those that grew up here and those came here recently. The later of course will have no knowledge of Luxemburgish. They will, in a first attempt, learn the language that will be most usefull for them, which is french since it's the administrative language (if they don't speak it already). The first group consists mostly of Portuguese and Italiens, so people that speak a romanic language. For them learning French is much easier than learning Luxemburgish. As kids, they learn Luxemburgish of course through there social contacts in school. I have often overheard conversations of Portuguese teens in the bus that start with French or Luxembourgish and suddendly speak Portuguese when they don't want to be understood. For the people of Luxembourgish nationality, well for them living in Luxembourg is like living in Babel. In your family you speak Luxembourgish, with your friends too. You read your newspaper in German or French (both languages are used simulaneously in the same issue, but luckily never in the same article :-), you get your official letters/documents in French. You read the street names in French on the signs but in your mind you use the Luxembourgish one (the main reason why I am very rarely able to help any tourist to tell him where a specific street is). So what do you do when you go to a shop or public washroom? Use French! It's the language that works allways. Ironically, as a Luxembourger you automatically start talking French when you enter a shop since there are so many employees from France or Belgium (mentioned earlier) who work there. Soetimes you notice by the accent of the other person that he/she speaks Luxembourgish (happened to me several times). So if you are not completely confused yet try to get this: in our parliement, the member of parliements are all speaking Luxembourgish, he ministers are speaking French. So whenever a member of parliement is asking a minsiter, the question comes in Luxembourgish, the answer in French.

hope that I didn't confuse you too much. thom

Thanks a lot thom , i think your elaboration helped clarify this matter. so i got this right the native language is luxembourgish, and french is sort of government language. i didn't know that many people came to work everyday. Xhami

Added some content on the language. claudi

Echternach

This place is described in the text as one of the 3 most important places in the country, yet it does not rate a mention on the map. How come? Cheers JackofOz 01:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Republic?

I came across a suspicious (to a layman in Lux history) phrase:

After a 3-day period as a Soviet Socialist Republic in 1919...

A 30-minute web search did not provide independent confirmation of the fact. I looked into the history of the article and found that it was added by an anon on 16 Oc.2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luxembourg&oldid=6658673) during a massive addition, so it is probably a valid one.

But the fact is of certain notoriety and requires some confirmation. Mikkalai 21:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

well, since the USSR was founded in 1922, i'd say it's a hoax.

cheers, thomas

I would guess so, but I was baffled by the fact that most of this section (that speaks about SSR) was added by the same anon, and most of the text still sits here. If SSR was a hoax, then the remaining facts thorough require scrutiny as well. Mikkalai 04:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I remember from my school years, Luxembourg was never a republic. However the situation after WWI was as follows: The then Grand Duchess Marie-Adélaïde was very unpopular amongst the people because she was pro-german during the war (she tried to arrange herself with the occupant to remain in power, the reason why her sister had(!) to go to exile during WWII). After the war there was indeed a strong republican movement which resulted in a government crisis. The Luxembourgish people was asked by referendum whether they wanted to become a republic or whether the already mentioned sister of Marie-Adélaïde, Charlotte, should become Grand Duchess. No Frensh troups involved here, just democratic voting! But I have to admit, I was laughing a lot when I read about the SSR. Maybe we should place it under myths?

cheers Thom

But the quiestion still remains about the validity of the rest of this addition (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luxembourg&oldid=6658673). What can you say? The guy could have slipped a joke or two more... Mikkalai 16:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge from Luxembourg

Luxembourg article now has a huge "history" section, which must be merged into History of Luxembourg, while the section should be made into a summary. Mikkalai 04:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. Please revise for redundancies, spelling errors and factual problems. klodi