Talk:Borwin, Duke of Mecklenburg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Style[edit]

For some reason, I am not convinced that George Borwin or his issue are styled Highness, even though Paul Theroff's Online Gotha apparently states so, or at least has no notes to the contrary. The only given notes are for George Alexander for when his title was created and when, at least for him, his style was apparently upgraded to Highness. Charles 13:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you finally accepted the fact that they are highness then or are you still in denial. - dwc lr 19:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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.


Duke Georg Borwin of Mecklenburg → Borwin, Duke of Mecklenburg — To the bring the title in line with other heads of royal houses/pretenders, the Almanach de Gotha referrers to him here as The Duke of Mecklenburg. Also he only appears to use the name Borwin. —dwc lr 01:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

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 naming conventions.
  • Support as nominator. - dwc lr 01:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose That "Almanach de Gotha" is the newer revival which is wrought with errors and inaccuracies. I would support the title Duke NN of Mecklenburg, Count of Carlow, with NN being either Georg Borwin or Borwin. Charles 01:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The (new) Almanach de Gotha is not a reputable source on this or many other questions. The title "Duke of Mecklenburg" is held by all members of the grand ducal house (whether you think the house is extinct or not); there is no single person who is THE Duke of Mecklenburg (even if you think the Carlows are dynasts, which is highly debatable). Noel S McFerran 03:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All members of the House of Hohenzollern have title Prince of Prussia but there is Georg Fredrich the Prince of Prussia as head of the house, Borwin should be treated the same for his position as the Almanach de Gotha shows this is a tiltle he uses. - dwc lr 12:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence from published sources (other than the new and unreliable Almanach de Gotha) can you provide that Borwin styles himself as THE Duke of Mecklenburg? Noel S McFerran 12:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can find a few websites that list him in the way that I'm proposing renaming the page with regards to the position of the title Duke of Mecklenburg.[1][2] - dwc lr 18:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose To call him Duke of Mecklenburg is to grant that there now is a Duchy of Mecklenberg. We do not, unless someone's been moving them again, have an article on Louis XX of France or Henry VII of France, merely redirects; we do not adopt the minority view that there is a present King of France. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mecklenburg states were both grand duchies. It looks like some of the German and Italian pretenders article titles will need to be moved also so as not to imply that are various principalities, duchies etc in existence. - dwc lr 18:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't recognise or not recognise anyone as the rightful lord of anything. All that Wikipedia does is summarize published scholarship. If somebody is called the Duke of Earl, then Wikipedia records that. Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma is regularly called "THE Duke of Parma" - and so Wikipedia refers to him in that way. So far, nobody has shown that Borwin is actually called "THE Duke of Mecklenburg". Noel S McFerran 22:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've shown that he's called the Duke of Mecklenburg you just don't accept the source. - dwc lr 23:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new so-called Almanach de Gotha has been shown to be an extremely unreliable source. Charles 00:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link shows the members of the Gotha's Comite de Patronage I imagine they know the correct/claimed titles of there members. - dwc lr 01:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning, Who's Who is a reliable source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have shown that ONE single source calls this man "THE Duke of Mecklenburg". A single source is not enough to negate other sources which say that he, his sons, and his uncle are all "Dukes of Mecklenburg" with nobody being THE Duke. The one single source which you have cited is widely known among scholars of royal genealogy to be highly unreliable. Please say why you think that this one single source should be followed as opposed to other sources about Georg Borwin and his family. Noel S McFerran 01:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided a perfectly acceptable source that you for whatever reason dismiss out of hand. Like I said in the last post the link shows the members of the Gotha's "Comite de Patronage" they clearly invited him to become a member so I would be astonished if they don't know the title and the style he uses. - dwc lr 10:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The senior line of Mecklenburg-Schwerin became extinct in July 2001, with the death of Friedrich Franz IV's eldest son Friedrich Franz. If one considers that the renunciation of Karl Michael in 1918 transferred all the rights to Strelitz to the Schwerin branch, and unless one considers that the Carlow branch has been made dynast since, then the house of Mecklenburg is extinct and the title of grand-duke of Mecklenburg passes to the House of Prussia. I vonH 02:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As I recall, there is good evidence supporting the Carlows' claim to current headship based on the principle that the agnates (not "dynasts", which would arguably include the Hohenzollern agnates as heirs-eventual) of a dynasty have the right to waive Ebenburtigkeit restrictions in individual cases by unanimous, irrevocable vote. But the Kennedy Almanach de Gotha is not a reliable source on matters dynastic, and in the face of the petitioner's unwillingness to do better homework, I have to oppose this petition. Lethiere 06:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 16:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Count of Carlow[edit]

I get 10 Google hits for "count of carlow", 9 of them from Wikipedia and mirrors. Maybe that means nothing, just a comment. ugen64 18:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for your comment, all references (other than wikipedia) to him I've seen refer to him by the Mecklenburg title. - dwc lr 18:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I see some reliable sources referring to him by the Carlow title I going to remove all reference to it. - dwc lr 19:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RELIABLE SOURCES? How can you say that with your Almanach waving? Should I remove the Mecklenburg title on that note? Are you denying the inheritance of titles by all male-line descendants of the original grantee? Charles 19:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any source would be a start. - dwc lr 19:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Convenient of you to say. Let's stick with reliable sources. You seem to like those, since you brought it up. I like them too. Charles 19:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit[edit]

Yes Charles what are your objections - dwc lr (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source for removal of the title "Count of Carlow" and weasel wording/phrasing was used to hide the question of the extinction of the House of Mecklenburg in the dynastic male-line. Also, please drop the sarcastic servile attitude, there is no question as to how immature it is and it can be found across various articles where you find objection to my edits. Charles 22:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no source provided for the use of the title Count of Carlow after four months that is the reason for it‘s removal. I’ll revert back and change some of the wording. - dwc lr (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, do not. The title granted to his ancestress for use by her male-line descent did not just disappear. Charles 22:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The grant of the Russian titles and styles to the Counts of Carlow did not replace or remove that title, it merely added a title. Charles 22:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve never seen the carlow title used by or in relation to Borwin or his father for that matter. - dwc lr (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed "originally considered non-dynastic" because it was followed by an "if" clause and I noted that he succeeded to his father's claims without saying that he succeeded to his father's position (which he may or may not have held, depending on differing views). As for the Carlow title, it is theirs by virtue of their male-line descent from the Countess of Carlow. It did not become an invalid title, they just happen to view their ducal title as higher (can you blame them?). Charles 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

I had a look at the old law of Mecklenburg and they stipulated that the prince had to be Lutheran. Is this guy Protestant? He has a RC mother, and a name Maria which might actually mean his Catholic. Which could IN THEORY disqualify him for the highly illusionary throne of both Mecklenburgs--Kdebem (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This branch of the Mecklenburg family is listed in Section III of Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Fürstlicher Häuser Band X (not Section I where the dynastic branch is listed). The family is listed as Catholic. Georg Borwin's grandfather Georg married Irina Rajewsky 7 October, 1920. He became a Catholic 18 November, 1920, and she became a Catholic 18 July, 1921. Both were members of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (which requires that members be Catholic). Both their sons, Georg Alexander (father of Georg Borwin) and Carl were also members of the SMOM. But I can't find anything about Lutheranism in the house laws here [3]. To what law do you refer? Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there was a stipulation in the old constitutions of both Mecklenburg, that they be Lutheran. When one of them married princess Winish Gaetz and became Roman Catholic he had to renounce his claims to the throne. If they are Catholic, then they should be taken off the list of the British Line of succession.--Kdebem (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I may be mistaken but I believe his great grandfather and grandfather both renounced their claims to the throne through I have read an article on his father saying if 1918 revolution had not happened he would be ruling in Strelitz. Also I think the Mecklenburg grand duchies were the only states of the German Empire that didn't have constitutions. - dwc lr (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you right that they did not have constitutions per se, but there were laws from the late 16s. and 1700s that stipulated a number of things, including the religion of the ruler--Kdebem (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British succession[edit]

If the duke is really Roman Catholic than he is NOT in line of sucession to the British throne. The same applies to his children--Kdebem (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move2[edit]

The following is a closed discussion 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 proposal was move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only uses the name "Borwin" and title is put after name to represent head of family for every other head of a German princely house and is how they are listed in reference works. - dwc lr (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC) — dwc lr (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

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 naming conventions.

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

This needs a German language version. --Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Borwin,_Duke_of_Mecklenburg&oldid=1200277280"