Talk:Albert Casimir, Duke of Teschen

Like a lot of German nobility related article on the English language Wikipedia the titles are wrong. He was Duke of Teschen, not Duke of Saxe-Teschen. Känsterle 14:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, he is called D of S-T in "Albertina, the history of the collection & its masterpieces" by Barbera Dossi, Prestel, no date given but newish. She is an Albertina curator & ought to know. Johnbod 00:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

That is just plain wrong though. That form is for divisions of Saxony itself. Albert wasn't "the" anything (duke, prince) of Saxony. Charles 01:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

He was a son of the King of Saxony, which makes him a Prince of Saxony, just like Prince Edward of England etc. As such he was able to style himself Duke of Saxe-Teschen (Dossi page 12), regardless of the normal name.

I see all this nonsense is going on in the German version also Johnbod 01:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Don't start going round messing about with Saxe-Coburg-Gotha now. Coburg is in Bavaria! Johnbod 01:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

At the time Coburg was in Saxony. That is all that matters. Teschen was not in Saxony. The two territories were also not in personal union either. The article is at the proper title. God forbid we have Andrew, Duke of the United Kingdom-York next... Charles 04:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please look at the published scholarly works on this topic: Walter Koschatzky's Herzog Albert von Sachsen-Teschen, 1738-1822: Reichsfeldmarschall und Kunstmäzen (1982), 200 Jahre Albertina: Herzog Albert von Sachsen-Teschen und seine Kunstsammlung (1969), and F.X. Malcher's Herzog Albrecht zu Sachsen-Teschen. The Library of Congress uses the heading "Albert, Duke of Saxe-Teschen, 1738-1822". It may not make much sense to some people that he is called "of Saxe-Teschen" or "von/zu Sachsen-Teschen" - but that is what is done. Try a Google Books http://books.google.ca/ search and you'll see that this is not just an error on modern webpages. It's fairly clear to me that he should be at "Albert, Duke of Saxe-Teschen". Noel S McFerran 17:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The repetition of informalities and errors is no means for us to perpetuate them. It is not original research that Albert was a Saxon prince and Duke of Teschen. The title reflects that. We speak sometimes of dukes of Wolfenbuettel, princes of Coburg, etc. Those are all informal and are not used as titles. Charles 20:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Duke of Saxe-Teschen" is not an informality or an error. What is totally wrong is to describe this man as a "Prince of Saxony"; he did not hold this title. His father was not king of Saxony, but elector (as well as king of Poland). At this point in history the dynasts of the Albertine branch did not use the title "prince of Saxony" (as they do today), but rather "duke of Saxony". In the Almanach de Gotha for 1821 Albert is listed on page 5 as "D. Albert, Duc de Saxe-Teschen" (where the first D is an abbreviation for Duke or Duchess as used for all the members of the house). I have now presented four scholarly sources which attest to the usage "Albert, Duke of Saxe-Teschen". Noel S McFerran 22:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I thought that after the Congress of Vienna, the Wettins became princes even though the title had been used varyingly before (since the 1700s). Would that not make Albert a prince? If not, Duke Albert of Saxony, Duke of Teschen is fine. Charles 22:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have cited four scholarly works which attest to the usage "Albert, Duke of Saxe-Teschen". A search of Google Books shows that this is the most widely used form of name. No evidence whatsover has been provided for the usage "Duke Albert of Saxony, Duke of Teschen" (although Theroff comes close, but he is mistaken). To put the nail in the coffin, I now cite the nameplate on Albert's coffin: ALBERTVS. AVG. MAVR. CAS. / REGIVS. POL. ET. LITH. PRINCEPS. / DVX. SAX. TESSIN. (Albrecht August Moritz Casimir, Royal Prince of Poland and Lithuania, Duke of Saxe-Teschen). A Latin inscription on a coffin can hardly be called informal. Noel S McFerran 23:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

AFAIK he was Prince of Saxony and Duke of Teschen, like his heir "Charles of Austria-Teschen" was Archduke of Austria and Duke of Teschen, not Archduke or Duke of Austria-Teschen. It is, however, often hard to find out what a person's exact titles were. The problem here is actually with English Wikipedia naming conventions, which require the inclusion of titles. The best title would be "Albert of Saxe-Teschen" (or maybe Saxony-Teschen), like in the German, French and Dutch Wikipedia. Känsterle 18:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

- glad to see you have come round, Känsterle! Certainly not "Saxony-Teshen" - you never get "Saxony-Coburg-Gotha" etc. There is nothing "informal" about his use of the name, Charles, and it is not for you to say it was "erroneous", when it was clearly accepted by the Austrian Court at the time, who no doubt took even more interest in these matters than you do. Johnbod 21:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well I'm glad that's settled! I'm off back to the quieter waters of printmaking. Johnbod 01:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I must say Noel S McFerran's proof is convincing. @Johnbod: I said Saxony-Teschen because Saxe-Teschen would imply that Teschen was a subdivision of Saxony (like Saxe-Coburg and Gotha), which it isn't. Obviously Saxe-Teschen is more common though. Känsterle 21:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albert Casimir, Duke of Teschen. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051105034133/http://www.albertina.at/cms/front_content.php to http://www.albertina.at/cms/front_content.php

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply