Talk:Albert, Duke of Prussia

Untitled

Who called it a "cow trade"? As a Lutheran, Albrecht did not need the Pope's approval. He had sworn loyalty to Sigismund, so he did not need the emperor's approval either. What does this add? Danny

Both, the pope and the emperor. Albrecht was until then the Catholic Grand master and Sigismund I was his uncle. Needless to say, that neither the emperor nor the pope agreed, after all it was imperial and papal land.

Hm, interesting. But what did it have to do with cows? – Kpalion (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

---

1525 Treaty at Krakow Prussian Tribute

(Note posted here, because of Space Cadet's ongoing removals) Albrecht swore personal fealty to Sigismund. However, neither the Pope nor the Emperor acknowledged this treaty and the empire continued its hold by giving the next grand master of the Teutonic Order Walter von Cronberg the administration of Prussia. The pope and the emperor had also not approved the previous 1466 Second Treaty of Thorn.

---

Question concerning Albert of Prussia wikipedia states: Born at Ansbach on May 16, 1490, he was intended for the church, and passed some time at the court of Hermann, elector of Cologne, who appointed him to a canonry in his cathedral.

What is the source of this statement?

I believe, that that might be incorrect and is rather a mix-up with another Albert of Brandenburg, also born 1490, but died 1545. Both Hohenzollern, but this one was meant for the church early on, became archbishop and cardinal. Albrecht of Brandenburg-Ansbach-Prussia (Albert of Prussia), however, only entered the Teutonic Order in 1511, with the clear understanding that he could not live by the Catholic vow of celibacy and he was assured that the grand masters are exempt.

Birthday

Half of the interwikis have him born May 16, half on May 17. Any reliable sources for either date? Kusma (討論) 01:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Albert I, Duke of Prussia vs. Albrecht von Hohenzollern

Which one do you think should be used for an official entry in Wikipedia? Should it be "Albert I, Duke of Prussia" or "Albrecht von Hohenzollern"? I think since he came from the Hohenzollern family, then this is the name that he should be under in Wikipedia. Your thoughts?

Norum 18.06.06

Take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). As he was not a king, the title should be "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}". Family names are rarely included in article titles concerning rulers. Also, the ordinal should not be listed, as he is primarily known without it instead of with it. Olessi 22:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Brandenburg/Franconian branch of the family, to which Albert belonged, has not used "Hohenzollern" as a surname in any way since maybe the early 14th century or so. john k (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Albert of Prussia = Albrecht Herzog

http://www.thepeerage.com/p11293.htm#c112930.2 Albrecht Herzog in Preußen was born on 17 May 1490 at Ansbach, Germany. He was the son of Friedrich V Markgraf von Brandenburg-Ansbach and Zofia Jagellon, Królewna Polska. He married, firstly, Dorothea Oldenburg, Princess of Denmark, daughter of Frederik I Oldenburg, King of Denmark and Anne von Hohenzollern, in 1526. He married, secondly, Anne Marie von Braunschweig-Kalenberg, daughter of Erich I Herzog von Braunschweig-Kalenberg and Elisabeth von Hohenzollern, in 1550. He died on 20 March 1568 at age 77 at Tapiau. He gained the title of Herzog in Preußen in 1525. However there is a person who was born with the name Albrecht von Hohenzollern. It was one of his sons who was born in 1539 and died in the same year. All of his six children bear the last name Hohenzollern but Albert was not born with this name he married into it.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Central16 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 

Title

Shouldn't this be at Albert, Duke of Prussia, not Albert, Duke in Prussia? He is most commonly known as "Duke of Prussia" in English (WP:UCN), not "Duke in Prussia", and the former title complies with WP:NCROY (European monarchs whose rank is below that of King (e.g., Grand Dukes, Electors, Dukes, Princes), should be at the location "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}".). Olessi (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Last Grand Master?

That doesn't seem accurate. There were military grand masters into the twentieth century and the order continues to exist today in altered form, with a Grand Master as its head. john k (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 09 September 2014

The following discussion is an archived 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: page moved. The article has a history of undiscussed moves, hopefully any future moves will be discussed first. Andrewa (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Albert, Duke in Prussia → Albert, Duke of Prussia – Common name. Try Google Ngrams if you don't believe me. "Duke in Prussia" is not what anyone says. Srnec (talk) 23:03, 9 September 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.

• Support - Search reveals overwhelming majority for "of Prussia" in sources. Also "in Prussia" and "of Prussia" are not exact synonyms and denote a slightly different position (atleast in German) - looking through the article there is no evidence, he would be called "in Prussia". GermanJoe (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

---

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.