Jump to content

Talk:Empress Elisabeth of Austria

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PatGallacher (talk | contribs) at 20:28, 21 January 2024 (→Requested move 18 January 2024: - cy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Countess of Hohenems

Why this title? Dennis Wheatley, in “The Second Seal”(1950) suggests:

[A character speaks of a chalet near Hohenems] “Do you not know its history? The châlet was built for my grandmother, the Empress Elizabeth, for her to have mountain air and treatment there when they thought she had consumption. But it turned out that she was not tubercular after all; and afterwards, whenever she went abroad incognito, she always travelled as the Countess Hohenembs to perpetuate the memory of her happy deliverance.”

Is there a source for this? The name would have been picked for some reason, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:E08D:8A00:305A:8611:AD37:9442 (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV?

"the marriage started to deteriorate, undone by Elisabeth's increasingly erratic behaviour". This seems a little unfair a judgement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.72.5 (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move, 2005

Please change the article to 'in' Bavaria... Her primary title was duchess in Bavaria. At least make Elizabeth of Bavaria redirect to Elisabeth in Bavaria, not the other way around. We're all about being correct here, right? I am posting here so that it can be moved without disturbing the talk pages.

Voting

  • Support Her primary title was duchess in Bavaria, differentiating her family from the royal line. Charles 05:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose I think it's fine the way it is. The entire idea of being a Duchess in Bavaria is somewhat confusing, I believe, for the layperson, who has no idea of titles. I think that's the kind of person that comes to wikipedia looking for information. Also, the Wikipedia:Naming Conventions requests that the titles of articles be "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Maaya 14:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Satyadasa 09:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because that will create other confusion and future well-intentioned moves back to here. The of placename convention is one relating to political geography, and not titles. Thus Iberian princesses are called "Maria of Spain" and not "Maria, infanta of Spain" etc. If there are multiple Bavarian Elisabeths to contend with, we have disambiguation techniques to deal with them. The name of an article is supposed to help someone find it, not only those initiated into minutia about the person. Thus we put a recent president under "Bill Clinton" and not under "William Jefferson Blythe" and "Willy Brant" is the title of his article, not "Herbert Fromm." Sisi is most commonly known as "... of Bavaria" and thus under the usual Wiki policies, that's where she should remain. --StanZegel (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Stan is correct. We don't use the formal title designation but a country one. The distinction between of Bavaria and in Bavaria is valid but belongs in the article, not in the title. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Her primary title was Empress of Austria; the article is under this title solely to disambiguate her from other empresses. (Whether this is sensible may be disputed.) Giving her her mother's title helps nobody and will confuse many; and has no defense in usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Maaya: I believe the idea of Wikipedia is to educate and provide accurate information. Sure, it may possibly be confusing and therefore I think it would warrant explanation on the page for Elisabeth in Bavaria. The convention is fine when the majority of royals are of a certain place, however, not all royals are so named. There are princes and princess Reuss (not of Reuss), dukes and duchesses in Saxony, princes and princesses of Hesse and by Rhine, etc. The fact that the title is in Bavaria lends to the rich history and circumstances surrounding Bavaria's birth as a kingdom. Charles 16:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has made concessions towards the names of royalty before, and I think that this is one of those cases. She is more readily recognised as Elisabeth of Bavaria. I think if you change it, we're going to be spending a lot of time reverting it back when people come along and read the title and think it's wrong. I also think that by changing it to 'in Bavaria', we're focusing only on her title of Duchess in Bavaria, and not upon her roles as Empress of Austria and Princess of Bavaria. -Maaya 23:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the article doesn't focus on her Austrian title at all and only focuses on her title of princess of Bavaria, which she was not known as. The ducal title was a means of differentiating her line from the royal line. It was the main premarital title, there is no denying it. The title is esteemed in the Wittelsbach family and has been recreated for a junior prince of Bavaria. All of his daughters are referred to as duchesses in Bavaria. One of them married Hereditary Prince Alois of (and in) Liechtenstein. Charles 01:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why not rename it Elisabeth (Austria-Hungary) then? That would end all the confusion of which Elisabeth of Bavaria she is. I'm sorry, but Elisabeth in Bavaria doesn't sound like any title I've ever heard before (I'm not saying it isn't correct, don't get me wrong), and I really believe that if you change it, people are going to revert it. -Maaya 01:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have a penchant for consistency... I know it is a very peculiar title, however, I think if people are exposed to it, they'll want to know more about it. I think it is important enough that she should be listed as Elisabeth in Bavaria and an explaination ought to be added as well. Or at least an article about the Dukes in Bavaria that can be linked to from the page on Elisabeth. I mean, if people type in "Elisabeth of Bavaria" and they get a redirect to "Elisabeth in Bavaria", they're likely to take notice and read about it. Her title isn't like one that has "zu" in it. "Zu" is always translated as "of" when alone and to "of and in" when used in "von und zu". The "in" in Herzogin in Bayern is very different from "of". Charles 03:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the title Elisabeth, Duchess in Bavaria is that our rule for consorts is that they shouldn't be referred to by a lower title than their consort title. Elisabeth was an Empress, so it's confusing to call her a duchess. On the other hand, Elisabeth in Bavaria is unacceptable, since it doesn't make any sense in English (or in German, for that matter). "in" is not a preposition which would indicate that it is a noble title, so having the article at Elisabeth in Bavaria is just utterly bizarre. Obviously her birth title should be mentioned and perhaps briefly discussed in the article, but I don't see how we can do this. I would, however, not object to Elisabeth, Empress of Austria, as a title. But I know there are others who would. john k 03:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it is and it does make sense in German. Just because people are not familiar with it doesn't mean that it isn't correct. The suggestion was for a move to Elisabeth in Bavaria, not to Elisabeth, Duchess in Bavaria. Queen Mary is listed as Mary of Teck, because she was "of Teck". Elisabeth, similarily, is "in Bavaria". The present Duke and Duchess in Bavaria themselves would agree. Consistency is the key. I am against Elisabeth, Empress of Austria as a title because it isn't consistent with how consorts are supposed to be listed. As confusing as it may be (and it isn't very confusing), it is 100% correct. Charles 18:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the votes, there's a consensus to rename to in. By the discussion, there's no consensus. Hmmm. Andrewa 23:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good, that seems to have prompted a few more votes. Now there is no consensus, but at least the votes and comments are consistent!
I think there are more important things to work on than this. The disambiguation page, for example, seems little help as a navigation aid as it is. It's supposed to help the reader to find the article they want. As it is, I think you'd need to go through all of them. Not good. Andrewa 01:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. WhiteNight T | @ | C 18:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious? POV, perhaps?

had obviously first shot his lover then himself

Why say it's obvious? Is there some controversy surrounding this? Have people suggested he was assasinated? Mr. Jones 15:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alternative image?

There are hundreds of better images of Elisabeth than the one now shown on this page. I originally decided on it because it included (a) the Hofburg in Vienna and (b) her signature ("Sisi"). Now that it has been cropped beyond recognition it is just an inferior portrait of Elisabeth (and of low quality, too). In other words, the whole point of the picture has been done away with. Couldn't we discuss such alterations before carrying them out? I think there is more important work to be done here, for example getting rid of that stupid duplicate article at Elisabeth in Bavaria. KF 10:28 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to restore the original image. KF 21:25 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

Sisi's "illness"

Amateur Elisabeth historian that I am, I find nothing really wrong about the information you have written here. I am just a little disconcerted that you included nothing whatsoever of her illnesses. A BIG part of the reason she traveled around (which, yes, most likely stemmed from her unhappiness with the conditions at court), was the fact that she was often (psychosomatically) ill (though physically, this made no difference; her body's reaction was just as if it had been a real illness). Then again, there is disagreement (lack of knowledge?) among historians as to whether or not she really *could* have been ill during these early years. Anyhow, what began as a way to escape court, to help both body and soul, ended up a life-long passion: the pursuit of "the other". This is portrayed beautifully in the musical "Elisabeth", as you wonderfully described, where she and the character of Death are, ultimately, a type of otherwordly lovers, who, after her long, and, some might say, unhappy life, are finally able to be together. (The musical, by the way, was also quite popular in Japan! I find this quite interesting, what with its setting and storyline, and all.) In short, this is a good, brief, description of her life. Some of the links do not work (I might try and help out with that soon), but you have done her justice, by not painting too rosy a picture of the Tragic Empress (incidentally yet another title of an Elisabeth bio). I would just suggest you add perhaps a paragraph about her illnesses, her struggle with what historians believe was anorexia, as these were her coping mechanisms in a world where she had no power. User Gingerm 7:30pm May 24, 2003

Title of the article

Should not this article be moved to [[Elisabeth of Bavaria]] based on the "use maiden names for consorts" rule? john 19:10 24 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi Gingerm, in case you're addressing me here: I'm afraid my knowledge of Elisabeth's illnesses is very limited. I suggest you add something to the article: Reading your contribution on this talk page has convinced me that you are better suited for the job. --KF 19:36 24 May 2003 (UTC)
KF, many thanks. I might actually do that once I have a few moments. Uni is ending just now and I am in the middle of a move. How to fit it in with your description, however, is the challenge (and making it flow, etc.). User Gingerm 11:21 pm May 27, 2003
And what a marvelous job you've done. Today I read this article and it was one of the most interesting and well-informed ones I've seen for some time. Many thanks Cornelius (talk) 05:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let's try this again. By the naming standards for wikipedia, this article should be listed under "Elisabeth of Bavaria". Unless anyone has substantive objections, I am going to move this page to that location. So long as there's a redirect from "Sisi", as well as "Elisabeth of Austria", it shouldn't be hard to find... john 23:44 25 May 2003 (UTC)

No one knows Elisabeth by the name you suggest. (Just have a look at the bibliography.) Understandably, Bavarians might refer to her as Bavarian, but she got married at 16 and spent the rest of her life as Empress of Austria and, later, Queen of Hungary. I don't know which Wikipedia standard you are referring to, but there must be exceptions. If you feel you have to do it, by all means go ahead.
By the way, the "of Bavaria" bit might actually be wrong (see the beginning of her biography). All the best, KF 01:14 26 May 2003 (UTC)~

Yes, her title was HRH Elisabeth, Duchess in Bavaria. But I don't want to refer to her as a Duchess, and Elisabeth in Bavaria is weird. As far as naming conventions, I give you:

# Past Royal Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title, not by their consort name, as without an ordinal (which they lack) it is difficult to distinguish various consorts; eg, as there have been many queen consorts called Elizabeth and Catherine, use Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon instead of Queen Elizabeth (the Consort of George VI), Catherine of Aragon not Queen Catherine. (from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)). If this is the standard, it should be consistently applied, not just to British royal consorts. For instance, Empress Alexandra Feodorovna is currently at "Alexandra of Hesse", (which is highly dubious given that she was Alix of Hesse, and only Alexandra after her orthodox conversion, but you get the idea) - Using maiden names is also the way that genealogists refer to these people. I agree with you that "Empress Elisabeth of Austria", or what not, would be more familiar to most people, but I think there is a high value to be put on maintaining consistent naming standards. Given that the late Queen Mother is currently at "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon", which, it seems to me, is considerably less appropriate than "Elisabeth of Bavaria/Elisabeth in Bavaria/Elisabeth Duchess in Bavaria", I think we should try to apply this uniformly. john 01:28 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, I've already made my point. Have you tried to google her name? Also, there is no danger of confusion whatsoever, so for me the rule you quote just does not apply. But I'm not the person to start edit wars with. As far as I'm concerned, you might as well rename the page Elisabeth-Who-Met-Franz-Joseph-in-Ischl. Good luck. KF 01:39 26 May 2003 (UTC)
I apologize but I must admit I had a giggle at that. User Gingerm

Well, Britannica's article is entitled "Elizabeth". Which doesn't work for wikipedia, since they can have numerous articles with the same title, while we can't. As far as it goes, I would hope that Empress Zita would be listed as "Zita of Bourbon-Parma", even though there's no confusion, and there's probably only one "Zita" who's ever lived, as far as I know. On the other hand, the name "Elisabeth of Austria" actually is doubled. Archduchess Elisabeth of Austria, a daughter of Emperor Maximilian II, was the consort of King Charles IX of France. She would certainly not be called "Elisabeth of France", and thus will have to go under her maiden name. As such, I think Sisi should be moved. john 02:02 26 May 2003 (UTC)

The only thing I would add to this recent increase in Elisabeth-Wikipedia Interest <g> is that, in my humble opinion, she should be named under that which she died; in other words, what do people (nowadays, when she died, during her life, etc.) know her as? I've studied the Kaiserin for 7 years (granted, that's not that long), and I would suggest that her "most recognized" title is Elisabeth Empress of Austria (or a variation thereof). I wouldn't list her under Elisabeth of Bavaria. To me, that would make me think of some Queen or Empress actually OF Bavaria (but yes, she was born at Possenhofen in Bavaria, and her title would have been "in", not "von", a slight but very important change due to the position of her father). A cross indexing, perhaps, yes. An example, Catherine the Great was born Princess Sophie Fredericke Auguste (Sophia Augus Frederika) von Anhalt-Zebst (Germany). No one would suggest she be known by her birth name, nor as Empress Catherine (whose name was Sophia) the Great. Either way this goes, she is RIP and Lucheni is fighting off demons. (just a little joke) User Gingerm 11:31 pm May 27, 2003

Catherine the Great was, however, a reigning monarch. Elisabeth was not, but merely a consort. Further, the general standard is that consorts are known by their birth name. "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" for the Queen Mother, not "Queen Elizabeth of the UK", or whatever; "Mary of Teck" for George V's wife, not "Queen Mary of the UK"; "Anne of Austria" for Louis XIII's wife, not "Anne of France", "Alexandra [sic] of Hesse [and the Rhine]," not "Alexandra of Russia". Further, if she is to be "Elisabeth of Austria", that would conflict with a future article that ought, at some point, to be written on Charles IX of France's consort, who was properly called that. Anyway, A cross reference from, "Elisabeth, Empress of Austria" is fine with me, since there's nobody else at that name. As far as the "Duchess in" vs. "Princess of" Bavaria question, I agree that's vexing. However, it seems to me that German prepositions don't have to be literally translated, and she was a member of the royal House of Bavaria, and as such, could be described as Elisabeth of Bavaria. After all, when a German nobleman has "zu" as their noble particle, we don't say "Prince Chlodwig to Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst", we translate it as "of", even though it doesn't exactly mean that. john 23:10 27 May 2003 (UTC)


  • Actually propose a whole different name. she was known her whole life and died as Empress Elisabeth of Austria. since all the Habsburgs are listed with their names, I propose Elisabeth of Austria. In Austria she is known as Kaiserin Elisabeth and not Elisabeth in Bayern or whatever, in the spanish-speaking world she is known as Elisabeth Imperatriz for example. Elisabeth of Bavaria is unknown. Antares911 16:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I vote for Elisabeth, Empress of Austria. This could be the exception. But in my count, her birth name was an aristocratic name, she was not a princess of any country. 217.140.193.123 20:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

She held the title of "Duchess in Bavaria" (Herzogin in Bayern) - this is a royal/princely, and not a simple aristocratic title - the Dukes in Bavaria were in line for the Bavarian throne, and were near relations of the royal family. The current Duke in Bavaria, who was adopted by last member of the line, is the younger brother of the head of the royal house. john k 20:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Too distant heirs, to my taste. And they were not male-line descendants of any Bavarian king. That has usually been the practical limit of "royal family". Royal princes of Bavarian kingdom received the official titulary "Prince of Bavaria" when the place became kingdom. This made a distinction to other line(s) of house of Wittelsbach, which were "only" ducal. As I said, I regard that title an aristocratic one, not royal. Lodovica and Max received the HRH, but it was personal, not inheritable. Have you checked that Sisi actually were a HRH in childhood? I mean evidence such as Bavarian court calendar...217.140.193.123 21:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Empress Elizabeth was NEVER known as "Elizabeth of Bavaria" in her lifetime. The honorific "of Bavaria" went to the branch of the Wittelsbach family that reigned over Bavaria, and not over the branch of the family that Elizabeth was born into. Her father was "Duke in Bavaria", not "Duke of Bavaria" and as such she should have been refered to as Elizabeth, Duchess in Bavaria. On top of this, she subsequently became Empress of Austria and Queen of Hungary. There is no justification in refering to her as "of Bavaria" when she should rightly be called "Empress of Austria" or "Empress of Austria-Hungary". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.203.158.140 (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The corresponding article in German Wikipedia is titled "Elisabeth of Austria-Hungary". The convention that consorts shall be known by their birth names and not by the names by which they became best known (usually, their consort names) seems odd for an encyclopedia (and, as others have noted, even in Bavaria she was never known as "Elisabeth of Bavaria"). One finds the article easily in a search, but the title may mislead some readers. DwightKingsbury (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her death by stabbing: was it pointless? Was it anarchism?

On 10 September 1898, in Geneva, Switzerland, Elisabeth, aged 61, was stabbed to death with a file in a pointless act of anarchism. Reportedly, her assassin, a young man called Luigi Lucheni, had failed to encounter the man he really wanted to kill and turned on Elisabeth instead as she was walking along the promenade of Lake Geneva about to board a steamship for Montreux. As Lucheni afterward said, "I wanted to kill a royalty. It did not matter which one." Bleeding to death from a puncture wound to the heart, Elisabeth's last words were "What happened to me?"

"Pointless act of anarchism"? Who thinks that's NPOV? --Sam Francis

I! AFAIK the act doesn't have anything to do with anarchism. From [1]: "Lucheni was a forgotten and even despised figure in anarchist circles. He was often called "the stupid one" in anarchist groups, according to police records at the time of the trial." Guaka 20:00, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Performance of a musical of her life by a Japanese theatre company

Someone added this:

"The musical had been performed in Japan Takarazuka since 1995 by yuki gumi, hoshi gumi, sora gumi, hana gumi. It will be replay in 2005 by tsuki gumi. Toho muscial troop had also been performing this muscial show starring ichiro maki as Elizabeth. It had been a great succcess."

Help me understand what it means. Some of it makes sense, but some of it is hard for me to figure out. Everyking 04:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I had a go at making it clearer, though I don't know if it's correct. Mr. Jones 15:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This refers to a specific production by the Takarazuka Revue, and the various "troupes" within which have performed it. I have clarified this and moved it to the Elisabeth (Musical) page, as I don't think it really belongs here. Seann 11:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name format again

Per Wikipedia naming conventions; also for strict consistency. Her sister Sophia is listed as Sophia Charlotte Augustine Duchess in Bavaria (comma missing in that article's title), as her maiden name. and Duchess "in" Bavaria a different kettle of fish from a Duchess "of" Bavaria. If anyone disagrees with me on this, then we should change sister Sophia's entry to conform. Mowens35 14:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i think we need a thorough discussion on the naming rules of queen consorts, empress consorts, and monarchs. according to current wikipedia rules, Marie Antoinette should be listed as Maria Antonia, Archduchess of Austria. do I need to go on? this current rule is to say the least, absolute b..... and needs to be changed. honestly, who has ever heard of "Mary of Teck"? anyone who knows that wins a price (Answer:Queen Mary of UK. why it is impossible to list her under that is beyond my comprehension). discussion on changing the rule most welcome Antares911 11:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Royal consorts and monarchs

hi there. i´m trying to get a discussion going to change the rules on naming consorts, monarchs, etc.. it´s a bit of mess at the moment. maybe you wanna join in and give your opinion? feel free [2] cheers Antares911 00:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate article

How in the hell there exists another, IDENTICALLY purposed article under Elisabeth, Empress of Austria. 217.140.193.123 20:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No there isn't. At least not any more.

Edit by 66.124.103.168

"The Empress Elizabeth of Austria, In: “Fashion and Fetishism” by David Kunzle

Elisabeth was born in 1837 of the eccentric Bavarian Wittelsbach royal line, and married the young Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria-Hungary when she was sixteen. After the relative freedom of her Bavarian childhood, she found herself thrust into Europe’s most ossified court. Her sense of personal dignity and independence as well as her very real democratic and humanitarian instincts continuously offended against the role into which she was cast.

Her first “political” duty was to breed. She had three children in quick succession, after which, despite her excellent health and natural fertility, she refused to have any more (although she was later to have a fourth child), and encouraged her husband to take a mistress and develop a ménage à trois rather than suffer his sexual attentions. This sexual rejection was all the more publicly scandalous and personally painful in that the Emperor was known to be (or have been) infatuated with his wife. The result was that the Empire, after the suicide of their only son, the Crown Prince Rudolph, was left without a male heir. In the oppressively rigid Habsburg court, and under the constant interference of her mother-in-law, the Archduchess Sophie, which prevented her from breast-feeding her children and developing a natural relationship with them, she became reputed sexually frigid (she had been virtually raped on her wedding-night), and unmaternal, as she herself confessed, “loath(ing) the whole business of child-bearing” (Haslip, p. 87; Paléologue, p. 17).

Her sexuality was sublimated in her attachment to her younger daughter Valerie, large animals (especially horses), and the cultivation of her own body. She was famous for her equestrianship - haute école, circus-style stunt riding, and hunting. At 44 years “she looked like an angel and rode like the devil” (Haslip p. 325). When she finally gave up riding in 1882, she devoted herself to marathon solitary hikes, swimming, gymnastics and fencing.

The Empress’ fear of pregnancy, her mania for sport and violent exercise, her preoccupation with her physique, her peculiar diet, her attitude to dress - all had one common denominator: the preservation of a figure which was naturally very slender, small-boned and muscular. She was tall (172cm, five feet eight inches), and never weighed over 50 kilos (111 pounds) all her adult life. Her legendary beauty and charm brought her oppressive adulation wherever she went in Europe. She preserved her youthful appearance in the face of what press and medical opinion viewed as bizarre, not to say improper, excesses in sport, diet and slimming. She hated to have to sit down to eat. She abominated banquets. For long periods she lived on a daily diet of raw steak and a glass of milk or orange-juice. She struck people as hyperactive, and astonishingly hardy. Her illnesses were all evidently psychosomatic, and her neurotic crises always cleared up when she was away from court, and was free to travel and ride, free of the gaze of courtiers and public, which she experienced as physically painful - as a visual rape.

Her diary, alas, was destroyed by the police after her death. But further study of archival material, of medical and newspaper reports, might reveal much more of the precise circumstances surrounding her youthful reputation for tight-lacing. It seems that around 1860-61 her waist measured no more than the 16 inches of the belt exhibited in London at the Great Exhibition (cf. pp. 220-21). Why was an object with such scandalous associations put on public display? With her horror of publicity, especially as regards details of her personal life, it seems inexplicable that the Empress would have encouraged gossip around so intimate a matter as a waist-measurement. If the numerous biographies remain silent on this curious episode, is it because domestically the matter was hushed up? After all, in order to protect the imperial dignity the police actively suppressed stories of her equine acrobatics, and destroyed photographs pertaining to it. If the 16 inch belt was displayed with her permission and knowledge (and it seems hard to conceive otherwise) or, worse, on her personal initiative, was it intended as a provocation? Was it the bizarre symbol of or satire upon the exhibitionism to which the most adulated woman in Europe was subject?

Her “peak tight-lacing period” seems to coincide with the prolonged and recurrent fits of paranoid depression which she suffered 1859-60, which have been attributed to her husband’s political defeats, her three pregnancies, her sexual withdrawal, and quarrels with her mother-in-law over the rearing of her children. Immediately after each pregnancy, she dieted and exercised rigorously; the smallness of her waist, which she appeared to flaunt and exaggerate, angered the Archduchess, who wanted her to be continuously pregnant. There were frequent rumours of grave illnesses at this time; consumption was widely diagnosed, and she was even accused of killing herself with tight-lacing. Her health improved immediately after she left Vienna for extended travels, and was able to confront the physical hardships of nature and sport. On her return to Vienna in August 1862, a lady-in-waiting noted her improved sociability, and that “she looks splendidly, she eats properly, sleeps well, and does not tight-lace anymore” (Corti, p.107). At this time her waist-measure had probably increased to 18 inches, its reputed extent (more or less) until her death (de Burgh, p.198, put it at 20). (Cf. Pl. 86). Other costumes exhibited at the Museum of Modern Art had external measures of 18 1/2 (bridal evening dress, 1854) and 19 1/2 (two, including the bodice through which the Empress was stabbed to death, repr. Joseph Wechsbert). In 1882, she is described by the Prince of Hesse as “almost inhumanly slender.” In 1887 she was “scarcely human in (her) fantastic attributes of hair and line” (Haslip, pp. 334 and 373). In 1890, she is still “graceful, but almost too slender” and “excessively slender, but still in terror of growing stout” (De Burgh, p.58; Corti, p.425). She was at this time having herself heavily massaged, and wrapped naked in wet sheets impregnated with seaweed. She transmitted her horror of fat women to her daughter Valerie, who was positively terrified when, as a little girl, she first met Queen Victoria.

Her body became a religious cult, but one of a highly ascetic and solitary nature. Clothing, as such, was excluded from the cult. She disliked the expensive accoutrements and the constant changes of outfit to which her role condemned her. She caused offence by the plainness, the preferred monochrome of her attire (De Burgh, p.292). What mattered to her was perfect fit.

An essential and early constituent of her legend was that she was regularly sewn into her riding-habit. “It was common knowledge in the hunting-field that a tailor from Whitchurch went every day to the Abbey to sew the skirt of the Empress’ habit onto her close-fitting bodice, so that there should not be the slightest crease or wrinkle around her 18 inch waist” (Haslip, p. 325). Her niece Countess Marie Larisch (p.65) confirms this custom, and that “she wore high laced boots with tiny spurs.” Her English hunting companions loved her for her warmth, modesty, ease of manner, for the fact that she was not (otherwise) at all “sewn-in,” and for her anger at any instance of cruelty to horses which came to her attention (De Burgh, p.289).

Some of her corsets were made in leather, like those of a Parisian courtesan. “Her many-coloured satin and moiré corsets were made in Paris, and she only wore them for a few weeks. They had no front-fastenings (i.e., no split busk, current since c. 1860), and Elizabeth was always laced into her corsets, a proceeding which sometimes took quite an hour (!-sic). She never wore petticoats ... when she took her walks she slipped her unstockinged feet into her boots, and wore no underlinen of any description ... she slept on an iron bedstead, with no pillows” (Larisch, p.78). Her hair was a glory, in texture very thick and wavy, a rich chestnut in colour, and hung down below her knees. Dressing it was the most important ritual of the toilette, which lasted up to two hours, during which she usually read, or studied languages. Many anecdotes testify how her self-imposed “enslavement” to her hair sublimated her sense of enslavement to the public role, how she used her capillary crown “in order to get rid of the other one” (the imperial crown). The hair was inviolable, mystical, almost literally sacred, a cult of which her spoiled and arrogant hairdresser was the high-priestess (Tschuppik, p.114, De Burgh, p.58, Corti, p.112, etc.)

The biography of the Austrian Empress contains a whole psychology of fetishism, which emerges with peculiar intensity and pathos as a function of her struggle within her uniquely elevated social rank. The rituals around her riding, slimming cures, corseting and hair were various channels of escape from and protest against her public role, attempts to recover an individual identity of which a pettifogging court, a devouring public, insatiable reporters and photographers constantly worked to deprive her.

Conspiracy to Assassinate the Empress Elizabeth?

September 1898 found the Empress — again travelling as the Countless Hohenems — at the little resort of Territet, on the shores of Lake Geneva, not far from the Castle of Chillon. Territet was one of her favourite refuges. From here one could make little excursions to the lakeside towns — Geneva, Lausanne, Nyon, Vevey, Montreux. It was after one such excursion to the ' 'Rothschild' ' residence near Geneva, on September 10, as the Empress and her little entourage were hurrying to catch the ferry for Territet, a shadowy figure stepped forth from the trees and struck the Empress on the chest with his fist. She stumbled and fell, it took some time to realise that the assault was murderous . As her companions hurried to her aid she is said to have murmured, "What could that man have wanted? Perhaps he wanted to snatch my watch." -- "Sisi, The Empress of Solitude" by G.S. Cheema, The Tribune Saturday Plus, August 22, 1998; http://www.tribuneindia.com/1998/98aug22/saturday/head3.htm

...the Illuminati acting through the Grand Orient Masons were responsible for these political assassinations...: Empress of Austria, 1898; King Humbert, 1900; President McKinley, 1901; Grand Duke Sergius of Russia, 1905; King and Crown prince of Portugal, 1908. -- "Pawns in the Game." (4th Edition, April, 1962), William Guy Carr [b.1895/06/02, d. 1959/10/02] St. George Press Los Angeles, California. pb 193 p. 76

In 1889, the London Fabian-trained Nobel Peace Prize winner Jane Addams brought socialism and international "peace" to Chicago neighborhoods (University of Chicago). Addams was just in time for the poverty and wars that would define the coming 20th century and lead us into the 21st century Middle Eastern Clash of Civilizations (Huntington 1993) ... In 1901, U.S. President William McKinley was assassinated "for the working man" by an immigrant laborer who associated with anarchists and Fabian Socialist Emma Goldman in Chicago (American Jewish Historical Society). Goldman's Fabian terrorism was also the inspiration for the foundation of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "McKinley's assassination came after a wave of anarchist terrorism in Europe. Between 1894 and 1900, anarchist assassins had killed M.F. Sadi Carnot, President of France; Elizabeth, Empress of Austria; and Humbert I, King Of Italy" (US Gov. Archives). -- "The Historical Evolution of Communitarian Thinking" by Niki F. Raapana and Nordica M. Friedrich, Revised December 19, 2003

Those readers who are superstitiously inclined may note the following. A day or two before the Empress’s visit to Pregny, while she was out of doors in the company of Mr. Barker, her English reader, a raven (bird of ill-omen) suddenly swooped down and struck out of her hands a peach which she was peeling. Further, when she reached the Hotel Beaurivage, bringing with her a number of choice orchids the gift of Baroness Adolphe de Rothschild, she found her rooms decorated with mauve and white asters, which in many continental countries are regarded as “flowers of death.” -- Citation to Follow"

Now, whilst this has some fascinating parts, particularly the first assassination attempt, it needs to be integrated into the current article, rather than trying to start its own, halfway into the main article. Also, there is a bit of a problem with point of view and opinion stating. I don't know if the anonymous user who added this is watching this page or even planning on visiting wikipedia again. If this is the case, they are more than welcome to integrate it in themselves, but first look at What_wikipedia_is_not, particularly the "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" subsection. The edit added here is full of original research, which is nice for a term paper, but is not commonly accepted knowledge, and needs to be left out of the article until such a time as it is. (Maaya 13:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The first question is copyright. If the above text is someone's copyrighted product, and THAT PERSON has not explicitly consented, it cannot be directly put to the article. It can be cited, yes. And its contents can be be written anew, i.e telling same stories, thwen those added to the article. However, then POVs and unverified things should be avoided (and, sooner or later, some editors will edit such). 217.140.193.123 18:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't compare Elisabeth to Diana. Those two women had nothing in common.

Claude-Victor

Please explain her ususual title "Duchess in"

The unusual title Duchess in requires clarification. Who was her father? I would guess the head of a cadet branch of the Bavarian royal family, but could someone please explain this matter. 82.35.34.11 12:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Her father was Duke Maximilian Joseph of Bavaria (1808-1888). There doesn't seem to be an English wiki page on him, just the German one. It says there he was descended from one of the Rhenish Palatinate lines. Is that what you were looking for? (Maaya 23:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Of course, the royal Bavarian line was also descended from one of the Rhenish Palatinate lines, but a more senior one. The family tree is as follows:
                Christian I, Count Palatine of Birkenfeld-Bischweiler (1598-1654)
                                     |
       +-----------------------------+--------------------------+
       |                                                        |
   Christian II of Birkenfeld (1637-1717)       Johann Karl of Gelnhausen (1638-1704)
       |                                                        |
    Christian III of Birkenfeld (1674-1735)            Johann of Birkenfeld (1698-1780)
        |                                                       |
    Friedrich Michael of Birkenfeld (1724-1767)                 |
         |                                                      |
    +----+------------------------------+                       |
    |                                   |                       |
 Maximilian I of Bavaria         Marie Anne   = Wilhelm, Duke in Bavaria
    (1756-1825)                      (1753-1824)       (1752-1837)

From Maximilian I descended the senior line, who had the title of Princes of Bavaria. From Wilhelm descended the junior line, of Dukes in Bavaria. 151.199.227.20 17:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC) [That was me, I was inadvertently logged out john k 17:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)][reply]

Was Wilhelm the son from Johann of Birkenfeld ? --80.121.75.54 (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC) (Andrea1984 from German Wikipedia).[reply]

Yes, William, Duke in Bavaria, was the son of John, Count Palatine of Birkenfeld-Gelnhausen, as the tree above shows. Charles 19:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles

Thank you. You are very helpfull.

With the best wishes.--80.121.75.54 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC) (Andrea1984 from German Wikipedia).[reply]

Last words

I know it's probably nit-picking, but according to the German Wikipedia her last words were "Was ist eigentlich geschehen?", which translates as "What actually happened?" rather than "What happened to me?". Is anyone able to verify one or the other? T-Rence 23:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the musical she says "Was ist denn geschehen?", if I remember right. So I would go with "What actually happened?" FreddyE 11:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think she says anything in the musical at the moment she is stabbed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.201.201.95 (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV issue?

She loved horses and was no doubt the best horsewoman of her time.

This is a pretty minor thing, but I feel that "no doubt the best" is a slight bias, or at least requires some sort of citation, as arguing that someone is the best is inherently biased. Opinions?

Yeah, just say she was noted as a skilled horsewoman, or something. john k 02:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, I'll do that <3 Keakealani 20:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon

I'm pretty sure there's an animated "biography" of this girl's life made by Saban. RocketMaster 08:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well..there´s a (imho) god awfull tv-series. FreddyE 11:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it awfull? RocketMaster 04:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a cartoon series made by Saban entitled Princess Sissi. It is loosely adapted from the life of Sissi leading up to her marriage to Franz. It began its run in 1998 with a total of 52 episodes, and has been translated into five languages. Honestly I didn't think the series was all that bad; I found it charming. Buena Vista now owns the rights to the series, and has released it on DVD in Europe. It wouldn't hurt to place the show on the Sissi disambiguation page. Icseaturtles (Ch@t/About This) 07:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It´s not very historical correct as far as I know. FreddyE (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I came looking for at this site. Of course it belongs in here. The cartoon series was actually more historically accurate (in some aspects) than the equally "god-awful" Romi Schneider films.137.248.173.59 (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new books about Elisabeth

Dear Friends, do you know if we can write the biographies of the writer of the new books about Elisabeth of Austria ? I think it is a good idea to know what every book contain and to have a short summary of the writers' life. But I don't know if it's possible. thank you. Giuly

I know something about a new book about Elisabeth and Archduchess Sophie. They understand better, than we know. The book is written by Gabriele Praschl-Bichler and come out in March 2008. You can buy it by Amazon.

--AndreaMimi (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the book, it's very great. You can unterstand Archduchess Sophie and her nice Empress Elisabeth now better. Many letters are in this book.

I don't know, it's translated in english. --AndreaMimi (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Sorry, I updated this without noticing the message, not realising the vote had finished. Deb 11:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The result of the proposal was No consensus.--Húsönd 20:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Elisabeth of Bavaria → Empress Elisabeth of Austria – We have decided to move Marie Antoinette of Austria to simple Marie Antoinette, because that's common usage. This case is similar; as the bibliography shows, she's usually called "Empress Elisabeth of Austria". I wouldn't object to making the dab "Austria-Hungary"; but I don't propose it: It's less correct (she was Queen of Hungary) and I think less used. "Empress Elisabeth" is ambiguous with Elisabeth of Russia; "Elisabeth" with many people.

This is, in part, an effort to decide what WP:NCNT should say on such cases; let's think it through, not just decide on the basis of the present wording, which is in any case unclear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

I'd like to move her to Elisabeth, Empress of Austria, to kick-start the move to "Bob, King of Foo" naming convention that was extensively discussed, pretty-much agreed, and then forgotten about. Proteus (Talk) 23:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was forgotten about, it should be brought up again rather than pushed into place. Charles 11:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was forgotten about because it was not agreed; it may or may not have had a majority, which is different. The issues are also different; one might support Henry IV, King of France, and not Proteus' proposal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 8 April 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.

To me, Albert is no direct descendant of hers, there may be a confusion with another Elisabeth of Bavaria who is his grand Mother. Will someone confirm this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.182.137 (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig II

I read in this article that ludwig II was Elisabeth's nephew. For me, it's her half-cousin. i changed this information.--Locusfr (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the article still titled Elizabeth of Bavaria?

I looked for her under Elizabeth of Austria and Couldn't find her. I know she was born in Bavaria, thus looked for her under that title. However, not everybody would know that, seeing as she's commonly referred to in history books, films, fashion articles, etc. as Elizabeth of Austria. In fact, she is often called Empress Elizabeth of Austria. The title needs to be changed. It could be entitled Elizabeth of Bavaria, Empress of Austria.--jeanne (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The title for the corresponding article in the German-language Wikipedia is Elizabeth of Bavaria (well, Elisabeth in Bayern), so there must be good reason for this title.Hohenloh (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been moved to „Elisabeth von Österreich-Ungarn“ („Elisabeth of Austria-Hungary") in German Wikipedia after consensus. Same should be done here now. --Nepenthes (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elizabeth of Bavaria (well, Elisabeth in Bayern)" Elisabeth von Bayern! I think it should be "Elisabeth of Austria-Hungary"--Andreas Hausberger 11:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversano Isabella (talk • contribs)

Sisi or Sissi?

I have always seen Sissi, but perhaps Sisi is German? Here in Italy they use Sissi.--jeanne (talk) 08:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Sissi is the standard spelling in modern German, and Sisi is a historical spelling. Not sure though. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the historical form is "Sisi". the version with the double-s is based on the movie.--88.117.85.214 (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

correct name

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.

Not moved Vegaswikian (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth of Bavaria → Elisabeth in Bavaria — she was not "Duchess of Bavaria" but "Duchess in Bavaria", which makes a difference if we want to use her correct maiden name. Gryffindor (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let us take advantage of this opportunity to modify the maiden-name "rule" and call her the Empress Elisabeth of Austria, which is what anglophones actually call the poor woman. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 29 October 2009 (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.

A better title for this article

I suggest "Empress Elisabeth, consort of Franz Joseph I, Emperor of Austria." Entitling biographical articles with a fairly obscure identity seems unnecessary. Torontonian1 (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. First of all, the title you propose is invented. It would also be against conventions and against consistency. It would not be useful at all because no historian mentions her as Empress Elisabeth, consort of Franz Joseph I, Emperor of Austria. Surtsicna (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since When is Franz Joseph Called Francis Joseph?

Why is Franz Joseph called "Francis Joseph" throughout this article? Why is his name anglicized to this extent? I am an American educated in the US and we never, ever have referred to him as "Francis". And then again neither does Wikipedia anywhere else... Did someone just arbitrarily decide that they liked the name Francis better than Franz - maybe because of its unisexual appeal or sexual ambiguity? I find it very strange that someone went through this article and systematically changed his name to Francis (which they would have to do to enable the extent of its consistent use throughout the article)... And went out of their way with Wikipedia internal references (which list him as Franz Joseph) to insist upon Francis in any references here. On the one hand, it is not a big deal but on the other it seems rather peculiar... Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to contemporary scholars, Empress Elisabeth knew Greek better than any of the Bavarian Greek queens in the 19th century.

I don't get this. Greece had two queens in the 19th century, one was a Saxon and the other Russian.Who were these "Bavarian Greek" queens, and who are these contemporary scholars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.81.13 (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the Editor: "and a series of reputed lovers'"... part

There has never been any proof of this. There were enough rumours about this, but there is no direct indication that any of these rumours were true. quite the contrary, possible due to the 'reputed sexual frigidity'. So maybe it would be nice if you could edit this into the Wiki page and add a slight bias to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.60.201.234 (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tone of the article

The style and tone currently reads like an essay or the rough draft of a romantic novel. This needs to be fixed as soon as possible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move to "Empress Elisabeth of Austria"

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth of Bavaria → Empress Elisabeth of Austria – As Empress Elisabeth gets over five times as many post-1980 Google Book hits as Elisabeth of Bavaria, it is clearly this person's WP:COMMONNAME. "Of Austria" is an obvious disambiguator in this context. "Empress Elisabeth of Austria" is already a redirect to this page. When this move was previously proposed in 2007, it was unsuccessful despite getting the approval of a narrow majority. Since then, WP:NCROY#Consorts_of_sovereigns has been changed to allow the article title for a consort to be the name she is mostly commonly referred to, as opposed to her maiden name. There was a successful move of this kind recently for Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, which was passed with Jimbo's "enthusiastic support". Kauffner (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Elisabeth's interration into the Kaisergruft.

Unfortunately about what you are saying about: 'Like all fifteen Hapsburg Empresses before her, her body was buried in the crypt, but her heart was sent to the Augustinian Church, where she was married, and her internal organs were placed in the crypt of the Metropolitan Church of Saint Stephen.[38]'

is NOT correct, i don't know the source '38', the book, but i can certainly vouch for the fact that there are 54 hearts of empresses/emperors in the Herzgruft, and Elisabeth is not one of them. The last person who's insides had been seperatad from the body was Franz Karl, the father of Franz Joseph, which happened in 1878, so before the death of Elisabeth. I have checked this fact to be sure with the Augustinerkirche. btw, I am sure i want to read the 'Elizabeth, empress of Austria: a memoir' now, to see what more they have to tell. So unfortunately i cannot tell if the description of the inner coffins of her coffin is correct. 212.190.80.221 (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True beauty cult

The text currently reads, Elisabeth practised what could be called a true beauty cult. This does not read like encyclopedic prose, but I can't think of how to fix it. Any suggestions? Zyxwv99 (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

The photograph
The painting

I believe the original lead image, this official photograph, was the best choice. Photographs generally depict people better than paintings and this is not an exception. The photograph was replaced by this painting which I then replaced with a detail of the same painting because it focuses on the subject's face and not on the subject's ball gown. It was all well-explained in the edit summary. I also shortened the caption by leaving out redundant and unneccessary bits. However, all my edits have been reverted without any explanation. Is there any chance that can be explained here? Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Surtsicna. The closeup of Empress Elisabeth is far superior to that of the painting in that it shows her face. This should always be a factor when choosing a lead image. Seeing as there is no convincing argument being put forth advocating the painting, I shall revert to the 1867photo.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The official portrait by Winterhalter is by far the most famous one of her and should accordingly be used in the inbox. See also the portrait by Rigaud of Louis XIV of France for example. Gryffindor (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A portrait should not be used simply because it is famous. It should be useful to the reader. The reader should get to see the face of the subject clearly. Isn't the subject's face more relevant and more important than the subject's costume? Surtsicna (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There sees to be a similar issue at Talk:Maria Theresa#Lead image. Surtsicna (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Winterhalter portrait would be useful farther down the page but regarding the lead image Surtsicna has already succintly explained why the 1867 photograph showing her face should be used. Gryffindor, please stop edit-warring as there's consensus to use the photo.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The portrait is useful because it is the most famous one. Putting an obscure image instead is bizarre, since the history books themselves don't do it either. Gryffindor (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. How does the fame of a painting make the painting useful? Useful for what? It is not useful to get a clear image of the empress, which is supposed to be the purpose of a lead image. For what it's worth, I would not call the coronation photograph obscure. Surtsicna (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Put the photograph in the lead. WikiParker (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

which one is Elisabeth?

I find photo caption "Purported last photograph taken of Elisabeth the day before her death at Territet, Switzerland"; there are TWO women in it, so which one is Elisabeth and who is the other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The lady in black is Elisabeth, the ohter one is Irma Staray, her lady in waiting.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claude victor (talk • contribs) 08:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They both appear to be in black. Can someone add a notation to the photograph indicating which one is Elisabeth? Sadiemonster (talk) 09:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the lady on the left is Elisabeth, but I am not certain. john k (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate

"Elisabeth, who fled protocol all her life, was unable to escape it in death." This is extremely inappropriate for an encyclopedia.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Empress Elisabeth of Austria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Empress Elisabeth of Austria. 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:

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) 19:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait war

I notice that there is a war going on about which portrait of Elisabeth to use in the infobox. It is between the Franz Xaver Winterhalter portrait of 1865 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Winterhalter_Elisabeth_2.jpg and the Georg Martin Ignaz Raab portrait of 1874 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_the_princess_sissi_in_venice.png

I prefer the Raab portrait for two reasons. The first reason is because it shows Elisabeth close to the mid-point of her marriage (she became Empress in 1854 and died 1898 and half-way in-between was 1876.) Secondly, Raab's portrait is of Elisabeth, not of her gown. The real Winterhalter portrait may have been huge and, if so, viewers may have gotten a good view of her face but that is not the case looking at a picture of the portrait on the web. WikiParker (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I now notice that six years ago there was an edit war going on with the lead image too (see above.) I even responded. Although I voted for a photograph back then and a different painted portrait this time I still believe the Winterhalter portrait stinks for the lead. Put it someplace else in the article. WikiParker (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. The subject of this article is not the Courtly Gala Dress with Diamond Stars. The subject is Elisabeth Amalie Eugenie. Her face is what should be shown in the lead image. Surtsicna (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also for me the Raab portrait is better --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And why is the Raab painting better than the Rabending photograph? The photograph shows her face much, much more clearly - and that is the reason we prefer Raab to Winterhalter, isn't it? The photograph is also, obviously, a more faithful depiction. Surtsicna (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
they wrote it above "I prefer the Raab portrait for two reasons. The first reason is because it shows Elisabeth close to the mid-point of her marriage (she became Empress in 1854 and died 1898 and half-way in-between was 1876.) Secondly, Raab's portrait is of Elisabeth, not of her gown. The real Winterhalter portrait may have been huge and, if so, viewers may have gotten a good view of her face but that is not the case looking at a picture of the portrait on the web." thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread my comment. Surtsicna (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't revert without consesus! Me and WikiParker don't think as you. If the community decides it will be changed, for the moment you are not in the majority --LivioAndronico (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is to use the photograph. WikiParker agreed to that years ago and does not appear to oppose the photograph. See #Lead image. The community has decided and thus far you are not in the majority. Besides, Wikipedia is not about voting. Can you explain why you think the painting is preferable to the photograph? I have already explained why it is not, but will gladly do so again: a) photographs are more faithful depictions than paintings, b) her face is much, much more visible in the photograph than in the painting. Surtsicna (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because it must be a portrait, not the photo of the dress, and the consent of years ago does not count if there are new images! If we have to put a picture, I prefer this [3] one that is a portrait. What you think?--LivioAndronico (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you misunderstood me twice already. I am not suggesting that we use the picture of the dress. I suggested, and we agreed to, precisely the photo portrait you linked, i.e. the 1867 coronation photograph. That's the one I reinserted into the article. Surtsicna (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think I have misunderstood , anyway [4] is that good in your opinion? --LivioAndronico (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it's great. It shows her face very clearly and faithfully. Surtsicna (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect....resolve. Thanks. --LivioAndronico (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, in my opinion, using the photograph is far superior to the use of any portrait, for all of the reasons already discussed. L.Smithfield (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will the dissenting party finally use the talk page to explain why the Winterhalter portrait is the best option? Surtsicna (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname spelling

Dear IP,

I see, the source, but as well it contains of the bottom a reference to María Pilar Queralt del Hierro is author of La Sombra de Sissi ( The Shadow of Sisi), which explores the impact of Sisi on the Austrian Royal Family.; where the generally used Sissi appears...so it should be clarified why National Geographic uses Sisi, or it is a possible English version, however, commonly despite it is spelled as Sissi, as in the rest of the article. Or you should present a source where you version of alleged mispelling appears...Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

"Sisi" is the spelling used by herself and her family, etc., and is what is generally used by "official" sources; e.g.:
  • "About Vienna, your travelguide to Vienna: Wien, Vienne, Viena, Austria". www.aboutvienna.org.
  • "Sisi Museum". www.hofburg-wien.at.
However, it should be noted that "Sissi" is also common (perhaps popularized from the 1950s film trilogy). The WP article will seem out-of-date to those familiar with the subject if "Sissi" is used predominantly.
Dynamic IP: 2606:A000:1126:28D:18A5:453D:C95D:87ED (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the first sentence of the NG article (that is used as source for "Sissy") begins: Married at 16 to the emperor of Austria, Elisabeth—nicknamed Sisi... -- so, please remove it as source, or change to "Sisi" per source. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protection Request

Empress Elisabeth I feel is to important of a historical figure to not have a semi-protected badge! I think she should at least be semi-protected along with her husband, because of there well known roles in history. So if you can, please semi-protect there pages!

Requested move 1 May 2022

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Empress Elisabeth of Austria → Duchess Elisabeth in Bavaria – It is the general custom that royal consorts are known by their birth names. It also seems strange to me to be using the "Empress" title, we have "Queen Victoria" but this sort of titling isn't that common. Векочел (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 04:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Austria has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 04:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Hungary has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 04:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Bavaria has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 04:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The crucial factor here is WP:COMMONNAME. Elisabeth is primarily remembered as the Empress of Austria and not as a duchess. Ngram confirms this overwhelmingly - Duchess Elisabeth of Austria doesn't even register. Queen Victoria is so called for the same reason - she is primarily remembered in English sources as Queen of the UK, not as Empress of India. Bermicourt (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Duchess Elisabeth of Austria doesn't even register." Elisabeth was never a duchess in Austria. Duke in Bavaria/Duchess in Bavaria is the generic title for members of the House of Wittelsbach. Try searching for that term. Dimadick (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Bermicourt makes all the salient points pertaining to this discussion, with which I fully agree. Dr. K. 17:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Bermicourt. Suonii180 (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. StAnselm (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 18 January 2024

Empress Elisabeth of Austria → Elisabeth of Bavaria – Royal consorts are named by their name and country of origin, even in Wikipedia. For example, it's not 'Queen Alexandra of the United Kingdom', it's 'Alexandra of Denmark'. This article should not be named 'Empress Elisabeth of Austria'. This article should be named 'Elisabeth of Bavaria' (not IN Bavaria, as it's not a reference to her title, but OF Bavaria, because she was born there). If this is for some reason considered controversial because people will think she's unrecognisable without her title, then the title should be at least 'Elisabeth, Empress of Austria and Queen of Hungary' or 'Elisabeth of Austria-Hungary'. The erasure of her title 'Queen of Hungary' is problematic because it was a vital part of her identity, politics and actions; it wasn't for no reason that the Hungarians protested at her coffin only saying 'Empress of Austria', therefore 'Queen of Hungary' being added hastily. Furthermore, she is known as 'in Bavaria' in many places. Just because she's known as an empress to many doesn't mean we have to sacrifice her correct name and title. Putting her correct name may motivate people to learn instead of giving them the bare knowledge. I honestly don't believe there is anyone who will be confused over this, just as no one is confused when they read 'Alexandra of Denmark' instead of 'Queen Alexandra of the United Kingdom'. ImperialFabrics (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). ImperialFabrics (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose If you read WP:NCROY properly, you will see that there is no consistent standard for the naming of royal consorts. Referring to Alexandra as "of Denmark" rather than "of the UK" may or may not be correct, but this is a specific case which does not necessarily create a general precedent. I oppose this move basically for two reasons. Firstly, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Secondly, it could actually be better to refer to royal consorts by their married title, since this gives a clearer guide to their significance. I recognise that the current title may create problems since it removes her rule over Hungary, so I am not strongly opposed to calling her "Elisabeth of Austria-Hungary". However using her maiden title may run into problems, do we call her "Elisabeth of Bavaria" or "Elisabeth in Bavaria"? PatGallacher (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If Bavaria is somehow too complex for people to understand, which I am sure it’s not, then Austria-Hungary works too. Elisabeth is barely known as ‘Empress Elisabeth’, she’s mostly just called Elisabeth or Sisi. By the way, her name would be Elisabeth of Bavaria since it denotes where she’s from, if it was in reference to her title Duchess in Bavaria then it would be IN, bur it’s denoting her birthplace, not her maiden title. ImperialFabrics (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PatGallacher: Elisabeth In Bavaria is the proper name. Just answering your question, I do oppose this move. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 20:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:NCROY effectively just tells us that for deceased consorts, WP:COMMONNAME should apply. She is definitely better known as Empress of Austria. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn’t mean we have to dumb things down just because that’s how people understand it. Another example is people calling Elizabeth II Queen of England even though that title is wrong; we don’t accept it just because it’s popularly used. I propose at least Elisabeth of Austria-Hungary. ImperialFabrics (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, her being Empress of Austria and being known as that only doesn’t mean the article has to be named exactly that. It should be at least Elisabeth of Austria-Hungary or Elisabeth, Empress of Austria and Queen of Hungary. Erasing her Hungarian title is problematic. Also, no one has ever had a problem identifying her by the name of Bavaria. If you check other languages of this article they either say of Bavaria, of Austria-Hungary, of Wittelsbach, etc. No one uses the convention of ‘Consort (name) of (adopted homeland)’. ImperialFabrics (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I oppose this for two reasons. 1. Because the current name is fine and recognizable. 2. Because the name being proposed isn’t her name, it’s Elisabeth in Bavaria not Elizabeth of Bavaria. Kind regards, Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 20:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be Elisabeth of Bavaria because it’s referencing her birthplace, not her title of Duchess in Bavaria. I recognise that it wouldn’t make sense to demote her to a duchess. The name of ‘Empress Elisabeth of Austria’ is wrong and no other Wiki calls her such. Erasing her Hungarian title is wrong too. If not Elisabeth of Bavaria it should be at least ‘Elisabeth of Austria-Hungary’. The word Empress shouldn’t be preceding her name either. ImperialFabrics (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, I think the name should stay as is. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 18:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's inaccurate, though. ImperialFabrics (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a look at what other important Wikipedias call her. The Spanish and Italian do call her "of Bavaria", the French calls her "of Wittelsbach", the German calls her "of Austria-Hungary", and the Hungarian calls her "Wittelsbach Erzsébet magyar királyné", which might translate as "Elizabeth Wittelsbach Hungarian Queen". So there is no clear consistency here. PatGallacher (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But they are consistent in the fact that none of them call the article ‘Empress Elisabeth’, just Elisabeth, followed by her birthplace, house, or adopted homeland. ‘of Austria-Hungary’, if not ‘of Bavaria’, is the best choice. As I said before, her Hungarian title was equally important. ImperialFabrics (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Elisabeth of Austria, keep as is for second choice - I agree that it feels weird to precede a name with a title, we hardly ever do that and I feel its best to avoid it. She's probably the primary topic for just "Elisabeth of Bavaria" looking at WikiNav [5]. It's also far more common than either "Empress Elisabeth of Austria" (2nd place) or "Elisabeth of Bavaria" (distant 3rd) for ngrams [6]. That being said, if we can't agree that she should be the primary topic for just "Elisabeth of Austria", then I would agree the present title is the best option. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Empress_Elisabeth_of_Austria&oldid=1197753769"