Talk:Chlodwig, Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst

Birthplace

There is an inconsistency regarding his birthplace. Main article says "Chlodwig was born at Rotenburg an der Fulda, in Hesse." Sidebar thing says "Born 31 March 1819 Schillingsfürst, Bavaria". Which is correct?

The name

I still feel that the format of this name is wrong at best for an article title. Chlodwig was the Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst rather than a Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst. Furthermore, Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst used to be a territory, there in English, of would be used in conjunction with the title prince. I feel that the article should be at Chlodwig, Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst firstly because it is the format for heads of houses and a second choice at Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, which is the form used by all other titled Chancellors of Germany (the distinction being that they were not mediatized), with the exception of Prince Max of Baden, who was the member of a reigning grand ducal house. Charles 18:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel that this is still a discussable issue for the naming of the article, if anyone would like to comment. Charles 22:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What I really want is an identifiable naming standard for German nobility, both mediatized and unmediatized. I'm not convined that Hohenlohe should be treated either as a ruling prince or as a mere standard nobleman. In terms of him as the Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, I'm not sure if that should matter - Bismarck was certainly the Prince of Bismarck, and Metternich was the Prince of Metternich-Winneburg. Not sure what exactly should be done. john k 01:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

An identifiable standard for German nobility is terribly difficult to formulate. The best I feel can be done for now is to treat each person case by case, with any other applicable naming conventions, and then see if any patterns arise. Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst was, at one point, a territory... That is a difference seperating it from Bismarck. Otto is not at Prince Otto von Bismarck, yet Choldwig is at Prince Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst (they are both 'the' Prince). An applicable standard that has been practiced is to append the titles of heads of houses to the end of their name, if they are formerly sovereign. Chlodwig has been described as "Prince Hohenlohe", but if we are to include the whole thing, I feel it should be in a form consistent with the naming of other royals and nobles. Charles 01:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking that we need a single way that all articles on German nobility should be named. Just that we should have some kind of guidelines. john k 16:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If you could draft something up, I would add my thoughts to it. Charles 17:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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, and await outcome of NC proposal. —Nightstallion (?) 12:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Talk:Prince Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst - Prince Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst → Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst - All Prussian prime ministers and German chancellors up until the dissolution of the German Empire are under article titles which do not include titles of nobility. The only exception is His (Late) Grand Ducal Highness Prince Max of Baden, agnate of a Grand Duke of Baden. I believe that the move would be appropriate and consistent. Charles 17:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support Please see my explaination above. Charles 17:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I cannot find any Wikipedia rule that says that Chancellors of the German Empire go without title. Be that as it may be, what I do find is that noble titles are included, although agreeably that case is not clear-cut either. Don't see a problem with the current name (see Count Camillo Benso di Cavour), so far staying with oppose, I can be convinced otherwise of course. Gryffindor 18:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose; would support further simplification, say to the commonly used Chlodwig, Prince Hohenlohe (with the full German form in the first line of the article. Septentrionalis 20:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

As above in the move request Charles 17:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hello - I'm not really sure about this one. As far as Imperial Chancellors go, Bismarck, Caprivi, Bülow, and Hertling are the others involved. All of them held relatively new titles, and none were of the mediatized German nobility. The Hohenlohes, on the other hand, were from an old family, and had princely status in the Holy Roman Empire. It seems arguable that there is a qualitative difference involved, and that Hohenlohe was more like Prince Max than he was like Hertling. But I don't feel too strongly either way. john k 17:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Additionally: The real problem is that we have no clear rule for how to title articles on German nobility. I would support an effort to figure out said rules, and then to come back and apply them in this instance. john k 17:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We should hash out an actual naming convention for German nobility and stick to it–including whether or how we translate their titles. I can't say I feel strongly either, but I would like for us to be consistent. Mackensen (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've created a proposal on German noble naming conventions here: [1] Mackensen (talk) 18:37, 16 February 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.

About Marie-

this is the same Marie who was in Franz Liszt's household for a decade, whose mother was his mistress, etc., yes? (Part of the story of Chlodwig and Marie's marriage, from a particular point of view, and its consequences for Carolyne- Marie's mother's - eventually successful attempts to get her earlier marriage annulled... is told in the second volume of a recent Liszt biography by Alan Walker, if so...) Schissel | Sound the Note! 18:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Auscultator?

I was trying to link this term to an entry that would explain the role, and only entry I can find on this is a medical one, which is obviously incorrect in this context.

Is this the correct term and is there just no entry to explain it, or is it something else?

Orphaned references in Chlodwig, Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Chlodwig, Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "eb":

• From Wilhelm Solf: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1922). "Solf, Wilhelm" . Encyclopædia Britannica (12th ed.). London & New York: The Encyclopædia Britannica Company.
• From Friedrich Ebert: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1922). "Ebert, Friedrich" . Encyclopædia Britannica (12th ed.). London & New York: The Encyclopædia Britannica Company.
• From Georg von Hertling: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1922). "Hertling, Georg, Count von" . Encyclopædia Britannica (12th ed.). London & New York: The Encyclopædia Britannica Company.
• From Gottlieb von Jagow:  One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1922). "Jagow, Gottlieb von". Encyclopædia Britannica (12th ed.). London & New York: The Encyclopædia Britannica Company.
• From Adolf Marschall von Bieberstein: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1922). "Marschall von Bieberstein, Baron Adolf von" . Encyclopædia Britannica (12th ed.). London & New York: The Encyclopædia Britannica Company.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)