Jump to content

Talk:Maria Theresa

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 79.97.217.134 (talk) at 19:11, 13 January 2010 (→Full Title). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleMaria Theresa has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 17, 2009Good article nomineeListed

Full Title

The article purports to give her full title. But it contains an "etc" after the list of lands over which she was tititular queen. I notice the German source says the same thing. But surely we must gather form this that it is not her full title, but rather an abridgement of it. Is it really the case that even her own chronciclers gave up the ghost and inserted an etc or is there a better source available that gives her true full title? If someone does not find her real name, or evidence that the etc was an officially sanctioned truncation, by edict or decree, I shall return in a few days and redesignate the appellation more accurately as her "Shortened Title", or perhaps "Nickname."

I've made the change. Please let me know if anyone gets the names of the other dominions over which she was regent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.217.134 (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the official full title. The official full title of Maria Theresa includes the etc part and so does the official full title of the current Queen of the Netherlands. The etc part may refer to some minor titles held or claimed by Maria Theresa; it might have, for example, referred to the title of Queen of Jerusalem. Her father and husband were both claimants to the throne of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, so she might have felt that she was the rightful Queen of Jerusalem, but chose not to use the title officially. This is just a possibility, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. That resolves the matter entirely to my satisfaction. As a follow on question, are there any more titles to which she might have made claim? Which would be the best book to find this out? One on the Empress herself such as Roider? Or one about the Hapsburgs in general in which one could see the various titles that had fallen out of usage? I would really appreciate a pointer in the right direction regarding this, specifically the sources from which you draw your knowledge. Thanks! p.s. I understand that these questions do not pertain to the article itself per se, but they do pertain to its subject, and I would be very grateful for a few basic pointers.

Vaccination

It was incorrect to say that Maria Theresia supported vaccination against smallpox, as the technique was only invented after her death. She did, however, support inoculation, an entirely different (and riskier) immunisation method, and subjected all her surviving children to it. I have updated the article accordingly. Sergenz 22:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name

her name was Maria Theresia, not Maria Theresa.

  • Oppose move, since this is the name under which she is known in English. Martg76 30 June 2005 21:47 (UTC)

___*Oppose This does not change the fact that her name should be cited properly, not in a translation/transcription --Negationsrat 19:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. We use here English, not German. Theresa is the English form of that name. Monarchs (particularly dead monarchs) are almost always known in translated first names. I oppose "Theresia". I would not oppose "Mary"217.140.193.123 2 July 2005 09:22 (UTC)
  • Support - 'Mary Theresa' was a lazy Victorian translation, part-compensated by changing Mary back to Maria. Novices should be told that they will come across both versions in English.Red Hurley 22:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

___*Oppose She's known as Maria Theresa in English. Calling her Therisia is either pedantry or ignorance of English usage (or both)Campolongo (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't succeed her father as Holy Roman Emperor! The Pragmatic Sanction was designed to make Maria Theresa the Habsburg heir, but the office of Holy Roman Emperor was not hereditary, it was elective, and the Pragmatic Sanction did nothing to change that. Maria Theresa was never elected Holy Roman Emperor, though her husband was, on September 13, 1745. She was Empress only by virtue of being married to the Emperor. Maria was Maria Theresia Amalia Walburga, Queen of Hungary and Bohemia, of Dalmatia, of Croatia, of Slavonia, of Galicia, of Lodomeria and Illystria, Queen of Jerusalem, Archduchess of Austria, Duchess of Salzburg, of Styria, of Carinthia, of Carniola and of Bukovina, Grand Duchess of Transylvania, Margravine of Moravia, Duchess of Upper Silesia, of Lower Silesia, of Parma, Piacenza and Gustalla, of Auschwitz and Zator, of Teschen, Ragusa and Zara, Princely Countess von Habsburg und Tirol, von Kyburg, Goritz und Gradisca, Princess of Trient and Blixen, Margaravine von Ober- und Nieder- Lüsern und in Istria, Gräfin von Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz und Sonnenberg, Herrin von Trieste und von der Wendisch Mark, Grand Voyvodess of the Voyvodie. But she wasn't emperor. -- Someone else 05:30 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Ow, my eyes. Who became HRE in her place? -- Zoe

Imagine having to make out the placecards at THAT dinner! After her father died, Karl VII (a Wittelsbach) was elected HRE, and then the next HRE was her husband. The fact that she was married to the emperor, the apparently unusual concept of an elective monarchy, and the fact that she wielded such immense political power, seems to make a lot of folk think she was Empress in her own right. I suppose there's nothing to do but actually write something on the Pragmatic Sanction -- Someone else 05:43 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC) (dreading it!)
What I don't understand is that the ruler of Austria was called emperor, right? Like Emperor Franz Joseph. So why was Maria Theresa only an archduchess when she inherited Austria from her father? Alensha 14:06, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That's because the Empire of Austria, at least nominally, did not exist at the time, Austria was an archduchy in the Habsburg and/or Holy Roman Empire. Only a few decades after did such a name come to be used. --Shallot 14:22, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know that. Alensha 17:15, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have to do a project acting out the person, I need to know a little more about her personality, thanks


I think Mary Theresa was not the Queen of Jerusalem in her own right. Jerusalem came to the titulary of later Habsburg emperors because it was inherited from the Lorraines, Mary RTheresa's husband, who had inherited that claim from René of Anjou

Salzburg was at that time an ecclesiastical principality. It came to Habsburgs only after secularizations during Napoleon's time, and that was long after Mary Theresa was dead. Thus,an anachronism.

Galicia and Lodomeria came to Habsburgs only in partitions of Poland, and were not a part of the inheritance of Mary Theresa. 62.78.105.191 13:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Roman Empress

I removed the title Holy Roman Empress from the list of titles in the beginning and changed the sentence that she became such to that she called herself "Roman Empress." This is the wording of the Austrian Encyclopedia (aeiou.at) which I have put at the top of the external links. The fact that she was never crowned Empress is not mentioned there, but found in the German Wikipedia.

The wife of the Holy Roman Emperor was not automatically considered Empress officially, but some have been crowned, so this is a valid difference. 213.47.127.75 20:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Mistake

Maria Theresia was the ruler of Austria from 1740, but she rules Hungary from 1741 and Bohemia from 1743, until her death in 1780, respectivly. Sargeras 13:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont thing so. She was from 1740 the ruler of Austria, Hungary and Bohemia (and of other small territories). The years mentionned above are 1741 coronation in Pressburk (Bratislava) to Hungarian Queen (but she was the Queen since 1740) and 1743 coronation in Prague (but she was legal ruler of the Lands of the Czech Crown = Bohemia+Moravia+Silesia - already since 1740).--Jan Pospíšil 11:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems

It seems, this woman-ruler was baptized as (in German) „Marie Tereza Walburga Amalie Kristina“ and the name „Maria Theresia“ is the latinized form for official use (in Latin language) in documents, on coins and medals with her portrait.

Can anybody confirm it? Jan Pospíšil 11:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find this very hard to believe, given the form of the names: "Tereze" and "Kristina" are certainly not German (probably Czech), while "Marie" and "Amalie" are French (possibly French was spoken in court). The German form of this list of names would be "Maria Theresia Walburga Amalia Christina." Martg76 16:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Family

The source I used when I corrected some things here was Friedrich Weissensteiner's Die Töchter Maria Theresias.

Also, I think the "family" section should be moved under the "reign" section. Having 16 children is remarkable, but that's not what she is known for.

–Alensha 13:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birth

Does anyone know where she was born? The introduction doesn't mention it (nor where she died, for that matter, only where she was buried), and the article jumps right into descriptions of her claim to the throne of Austria. That information could be useful to people like me. Happy editing! --Cromwellt|Talk 16:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added both. Alensha 00:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HRH

Was she an HRH? Aren't ruling soverigns usually HMs (or if she was HRE through marriage, despite the above) an HI&RM?71.99.110.7 05:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Queen of Hungary and Bohemia she was styled Majesty and then Imperial Majesty or Imperial & Royal Majesty as Holy Roman Empress. Her children were all styled Royal Highness. Charles 15:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Franz Joseph in 1859/60 was referred to in diplomatic documents as "His Imperial and Apostolic Majesty." The Duke of Modena and Grand Duke of Tuscany were "Imperial and Royal Highnesses" john k 17:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • True. But between Maria Theresa and 1859 lie two substantial reorganisations of the Habsburg domains - firstly the shift from Holy Roman Empire to Austrian Empire in 1804-6, and secondly the Ausgleich, changing the Austrian to Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1867. AlexTiefling 09:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, the Ausgleich, in 1867, is after 1859. My point was that the double style came before the Ausgleich, which is what you claimed. I'm not sure if it was only a post 1804 thing or not. François Velde indicates the following:
    Since April 19, 1755 the members of the emperor's family received the style of Royal Highness (königliche Hoheit) and the predicate Durchlauchtigst, with the eldest son styled Durchlauchtigster zu Hungarn und Böheim königliche Erbprinz, Erzherzog zu Österreich). From August 11, 1804 the style became Kaiserlich-Königliche Hoheit.
    So it would appear that "Imperial and Royal" came in 1804, rather than 1867. john k 11:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Queer Life'??

Why is there a section headed 'Queer Life' on the page about Maria Theresa?

It seems meaningless and irrelevant. The heading should either be changed or explained.

Dozyveeny 08:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing

It's hard to describe how confusing the article is, but here's a start: some paragraphs are too long and periods of her reign aren't divided well. The political and military rundown of her reign later in the article is particularly bad.

Furthermore, though this is less about confusion, unsubstantiated claims about her confidence as a ruler are made (maybe she was an insecure ruler, but you certainly need to cite your sources, because currently it looks like this article is mind reading someone that's been dead for over two hundred years . . .).

I came looking for some more information about her, and the only new facts I've learned are her names in other languages (not that that's a bad thing, but it certainly wasn't what I was looking for, and it probably isn't as important as, say, how she secured Hungary's loyalty during the War of the Austrian Succession). 128.119.165.5 14:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is not a single mention of where and when she was crowned, for example. I'll look into it when I find the time.--Svetovid 16:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The first Taliban

Her roman-catholic faith is very well known. She tried to convert to catholicism any, and every soul of her big empire. Her eastern province: Transylvania had mostly christians, plus a few Juishes, but only a small minority of cca. 5-10 % were catholics. Therefore her reign meant tough prosecutions of the: protestants of all kinds, of juishes, of christian-orthodoxes (See The History of the Romanian Orthodox Church). Maria Theresa is seen as "the first Taliban" (avant la lettre) because she ordered, and the Austrian army executed with german accuracy, the demolition by cannon fire of all the orthodox romanian monasteries (around 50) of Transylvania and Eastern Hungary, around the year 1770. A similar act committed Afghanistan talibans when demolishing their famous statues of Buddha.Sorinutsu 04:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)SotinutsuSorinutsu 04:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)8:00 22 July 2007[reply] 

-Expulsion of Jews from Prague-

Maria Theresa expelled the Jews from Prague in 1744 (not 1741) after the city had been recaptured from the Prussian and French forces. She suspected that the Jews had sided with the opposing forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.88.212 (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Maria Theresa's paternal Grandfather Leopold I. of Austria and Francis I. paternal Grandmother Eleonora of Austria were Halfsiblings.

So Maria Theresa and Francis I. were cousin third degrades.

Elizabeth II. of England and Prince Philipp are also in the same grade related.

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

Elizabeth and Philipp are also related to the british-line of the throne. The are both great-grand children from Queen Victoria. Elizabeth' great-grandfather King Edward VII (1841-1910) and Philipps great-grandmother Alice of Hessen-Darmstadt (1843-1878) are silblings.

--AndreaMimi (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are actually both great-great-grandchildren of Victoria, which also makes them third cousins. It is also their most famous relationship. However, the closest relationship is through King Christian. Grand Duchess Alice of Hesse and by Rhine was Philip's great-grandmother and Edward VII was Elizabeth's great-grandfather. Charles 18:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's so complicated. ;) But a very interessted topic. Look, what I said above about Elizabeth and Philip. ;)

--AndreaMimi (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to find any Monarch or Royal of the period who wasn't related to their spouse to some degree. Take for example the Kings of Britain/UK :

George I / Sophia Dorothea of Celle - 1st cousins

George II / Caroline of Ansbach - 3rd cousins once removed

George III / Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz - ::3rd cousins once removed

George IV / Caroline of Brunswick - 1st cousins

William IV / Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen - 3rd cousins once removed

Victoria / Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha - 1st cousins


It must be noted that the British monarchs tended to chose marriage partners who were less related to them than was the norm for European Royalty.

-Lec CRP1 (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Lec CRP1

Thank you also for your help.

It's good not to be a prince or a princess. ;) I'm very sure, that I'm not related to a monarchy in europe. And I think, Charles and you too.

--AndreaMimi (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, my ancestry has a number of people with surnames with von (including my own surname) and de, so you can never really know who a Wikipedian is or isn't ;-) Everyone, I imagine, is a descendant of some king or prince, whether distance or close. Charles 20:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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 to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Theresa of Austria → Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria — I will be bold and propose moving this page because:

If we move this page to Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria, we would be able to move Maria Theresa of Austria (1816-1867) to Maria Theresa of Austria, and Archduchess Maria Theresa of Austria (1845-1927) to Archduchess Maria Theresa of Austria. You surely agree that we should avoid parenthetical disambiguation when possible, too.


Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose Standard practice is to use, for the title of a page, the name by which the subject is most likely to be known, and that is what we have. 'Archduchess' is not in itself a sovereign title; our present subject is most often referred to as the Empress Maria Theresa, not the Archduchess Maria Theresa. It would be good if people who seem to spend much of their time making tiny edits to this article, nitpicking over the precise titles and styles for the subject, her husband, and their children, tried making substantive improvements instead. (Yes, that includes me - I'm not getting at anyone in particular.) In short, I don't think the proposed move adds anything. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - obviously Surtsicna (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. This is the format we use for reigning monarchs. If we include any title for the Empress, it should be the highest, and the one by which she is best known. If we are to fiddle with this, in fact, there is a case for moving this article to plain Maria Theresa; she is the primary bearer of the name against the Queen of Naples and the titular duchess, and possibly even against the Queen of France (and why isn't she at Marie Thérèse?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the format we use for reigning queens and empresses, not for reigning archdukes. Name of Place format would work if we move the page either to Maria Theresa of Hungary or to Maria Theresa of Bohemia, or, God forbid, Maria Theresa of Croatia, since she was Queen regnant of those kingdoms. Moving the page to Empress Maria Theresa would trigger moving Victoria of the United Kingdom to Queen Victoria and moving the page to Maria Theresa would trigger moving Louis XIV of France to Louis XIV. We could keep going like that until the conventions become useless. I am not sure if you noticed, but her highest suo jure title by which she is known is Archduchess of Austria. Surtsicna (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The suo jure claim is both irrelevant and extremely doubtful; how does any Archduchess outrank the King of Hungary? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She doesn't, but she is better known as Archduchess of Austria than as Queen of Hungary. The suo jure claim is not irrelevant and I am not sure what's doubtful about it; Wikipedia and most other encyclopedias tend to use deceased woman's suo jure titles, even if they are lower than her marital ones. Surtsicna (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Archduchess is in itself a sovereign title - it was shared by a ruler of Austria (who was The Archduke or The Archduchess) and other members of the Archducal family (who were Archduke/Archduchess X of Austria). This proposed move certainly adds two things:

  • 'Archduke' or 'Archduchess' is indeed a sovereign title, but it's not, on its own, a solely sovereign title like 'King', and it doesn't provide diambiguation with non-sovereign members of the House of Habsburg. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a disambiguation between sovereign and non-sovereign members of the House of Habsburg. Titles of articles about sovereign members of the family use the format {Name}, Archduke of Austria while titles of articles about non-sovereign members use the format Archduke {Name} of Austria. The same rule applies to sovereign Princes (such as Albert II, Prince of Monaco) and non-sovereign Princes (such as Princess Stéphanie of Monaco), sovereign Dukes (such as Frederick II Eugene, Duke of Württemberg) and non-sovereign Dukes (such as Duchess Elisabeth of Württemberg), sovereign and non-sovereign Margraves and Counts, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair point. But I still think that adding 'Archduchess' to the title of this article makes it less clear, not more, who the subject is going to be. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, but I don't agree with it. The proposed title is supposed to inform users that the subject was ruler of Austria named Maria Theresa - indeed, there is only one Austrian ruler named Maria Theresa. However, the current title doesn't differentiate her from this Maria Theresa of Austria nor from this Maria Theresa of Austria, let alone other Archduchesses of Austria named Maria Theresa who are not known as Maria Theresa of Austria (such as Maria Theresa of Spain, Maria Theresa of Tuscany, etc). Surtsicna (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2008 (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.

Titles

She had many titles, Britannica only lists the main ones as much of them include the other. All the titles can be put separately under the section "Full Styles", and they are there already--Bizso (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The titles she held as de facto and de jure monarch should certainly be included. For example, the title of Queen of Croatia is much more important than the title of Grand Duchess of Tuscany which she held as wife of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. Surtsicna (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually if you check Britannica, Encarta or other sources, you see that king of Croatia is not mentioned separately because king of Hungary included the title king of Croatia, just like emperor of Austria included titles such as Duchess of Burgundy, of Styria, of Carinthia and of Carniol, emperor of Lower Austria and of Upper Austria etc... These titles should mentioned in a separate section like the one called "Full Style".--Bizso (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I would like toemphesize that the articles were correctly labeled at the date of their creations until feb/oct 2008 when they were changed by mostly 2 ip. Also the titles are correct in other language versions. Please check it.--Bizso (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See: [1] --Dvatel (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, list the sources here. It just simplifies things to have the discussion where it --belongs. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain to me why there's this sudden bout of edit-warring over the title 'Queen of Croatia-Slavonia'? Can't we spend our time doing something to improve the narrative of the article, which is remarkably scanty for such an important figure? Or is this title somehow of such earth-shaking importance (which I must have missed in my reading on the subject) that it's more worthwhile than useful content? AlexTiefling (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She was only the Queen of Hungary, because at this time Croatia was part of Hungary. Some users claim that there was a seperate kingdom, but in my opinion it is not true. The sources mentions her as King of Hungary. Of course there is a title of "Queen of Croatia" but it is just a title, truly she didn't rule as queen of croatia. MT had a lot of titles, i didn't count it but maybe 20 or 30 or i don't know, but a lot. If we would show the full title above, it would be very long, so i think, only the real ruling titles should be mentioned. Toroko (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AlexTiefling. Can't we spend our time doing something to improve the narrative of the article.

She wasn't ONLY the Queen of Hungary.. Of course there is a title of "Queen of Hungary" but it is just a title, truly she didn't rule as queen of hungary.. :)) Reference Harvard College Library 1895, page 12

"Some users claim that there was a seperate kingdom, but in my opinion it is not true." Toroko are you historian? And what is more important title Grand Duchess or Queen.. --Dvatel (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dvatel, it is obvious that you are not historian ... Otherwise, she ruled as "Queen of Hungary" it wasn't only a title, but Croatia was. The Kingdom of Hungary wasn't the part of the Holy Roman Empire, she ruled in the Kingdom of Hungary. And Croatia was only a part of Hungary. You shouldn't provide the article with references which are about events in 1861, because Maria Teresa died in 1780 - tricky try. And it would be better to care about the Croatian historical articles, because they are the shames of wikipedia. Full with nationalistic malarkey. Toroko (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Toroko, why are you so angry? Do I smell hate speech in your sentences? PLEASE, Stop acting on your emotions and deleting references! Croatia was autonomous kingdom in Kingdom of Hungary. Queen of Hungary was only a title! just regnal title! Btw. Maria Theresia was ruler of Hungary from Wienna not Budapest(Austria). :-)

I think before labelling anybody you should assume a good faith edit. --Dvatel (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what is so funny. It wasn't only a title. Definitely she ruled in Hungary and definitely Croatia was part of Hungary. A fairy tale about a croatian kingodm is nonsense, within a Kingdom there can not be another kingdom. Otherwise, Habsburg Rulers once ruled from Prague, but that didn't mean, they were no Holy roman Emperors. Your reference shows this in English:

"Maria Theresa, by the Grace of God, Dowager Holy Roman Empress; Queen of Hungary, of Bohemia, of Dalmatia, of Croatia, of Slavonia, of Galicia, of Lodomeria, etc; Archduchess of Austria; Duchess of Burgundy, of Styria, of Carinthia and of Carniola; Grand Princess of Transylvania; Margravine of Moravia; Duchess of Brabant, of Limburg, of Luxemburg, of Guelders, of Württemberg, of Upper and Lower Silesia, of Milan, of Mantua, of Parma, of Piacenza, of Guastalla, of Auschwitz and of Zator; Princess of Swabia; Princely Countess of Habsburg, of Flanders, of Tyrol, of Hennegau, of Kyburg, of Gorizia and of Gradisca; Margravine of Burgau, of Upper and Lower Lusatia; Countess of Namur; Lady on the Wendish Mark and of Mechlin; Dowager Duchess of Lorraine and Bar, Dowager Grand Duchess of Tuscany."

It was her full title. Dear Dvatel, there are two possibilities. Either to show all of them, or to show the real ones. Toroko (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Highness

Maria Theresa did not enjoy this style as an Archduchess, and therefore I am removing it.(Jack1755 (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Correct. Can anyone provide a source for the claim that any of those styles were actually used? Surtsicna (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Hi everyone, I have encountered some trouble with the infobox. Maria Theresa was Queen of Bohemia twice. I have tried to insert Bohemia a second time into the infobox, but it seems to only be able to bear a maximum of 3 titles and successions. Therefore, I have removed Bohemia from the infobox because the dates are wrong. Archduchess of Austria is now there in its place. If anyone knows how to fix it, go ahead. King Regards, -- Jack1755 (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemia should certainly be mentioned in the infobox. Since it is very unpractical to have so many successions in the infobox (+ all the children she had = freakishly long infobox), I wouldn't mind having only one succession for Bohemia. Maria Theresa did reign twice, but her second reign was much longer; besides, her first reign was disputed and war was fought over it, so she is not significant as disputed Queen of Bohemia from 1740 until 1741. Surtsicna (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The infbox just confuses me 0_o. -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, should we put Bohemia back along with the second reign? Surtsicna (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! :) -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, which sources say that Maria Theresa became Queen of Bohemia in 1740? German Wikipedia (and I assume others as well) say that Maria Theresa's father (Charles VI) was succeeded by Maria Theresa's cousin-in-law (Charles VII) and that Maria Theresa's reign started in 1743. Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One second Surtsicna, must go find the book! -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Crankshaw, p 5: "They in their turn bowed to her as Queen of Hungary, Queen of Bohemia, Archduchess of Austria..."

On the 26th [of October, 1741] Prague fell." (p 93) He goes on to name Charles VII as King of Bohemia: "Charles-Albert of Bavaira who, as King of Bohemia, was to sell the County of Glatz to Frederick [the Great] at a reduced price...crowned himself King of Bohemia on the 19th of December." (p 93) It should also be noted that upon capturing Linz, he declared himself the Archduke of Austria.

Hope this helps! :)-- Jack1755 (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say that Maria Theresa became de facto or de jure monarch of Bohemia in 1740. It seems that the books says that her supporters bowed to her as Queen of Bohemia (at the same time, other people might have bowed to her cousin-in-law as King of Bohemia). It was war; each person had their supporters and each held various parts of the kingdom throughout the war. Surtsicna (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She inherited everything intact. Prussia acted alone; it wasn't until the next year that Charles-Albert and Prussia formed an alliance. It wasn't until Prague fell that he delcared himseld King of Bohemia. MT held all of Bohemia from 1740-1741. Initial hostilities were soley in Silesia. -- Jack1755 (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition on Tuscan succession

Very strange you deleted this information, most of it is from other articles from the English Wikipedia, as you probably noticed. It is not unencyclopedic, because it helps to explain what really happened and most of it was already unsourced. You can find, and it was accepted in other articles. These details are from a catalogue in German that probably few people ever read. But few people seem to care about details, and most prefer to stick to what they have read and wrote. Who else thinks this is irrelevant?

France demanded that Maria Theresa's fiancé surrender his ancestral Duchy of Lorraine to accommodate the deposed King of Poland. The emperor Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor, at the end of the War of the Polish Succession, agreed to compensate the French candidate Stanislaus Leszczynski, (father-in-law of Louis XIV of France) for the loss of his crown in 1735.[1]

France's prime minister, Cardinal Fleury, saw the Polish struggle as a chance to strike at Austrian power in the west without seeming to be the aggressor. While he cared little for who should become King of Poland, the cause of protecting the King's father-in-law was a sympathetic one, and he hoped to use the war as a means of humbling the Austrians, and perhaps securing the long-desired Duchy of Lorraine from its duke, Francis Stephen, who was expected to marry Emperor Charles's daughter Maria Theresa, which would bring Austrian power dangerously close to the French border.

A preliminary peace was concluded in October 1735 and ratified in the Treaty of Vienna in November 1738. Augustus III of Saxony was confirmed as king of Poland, Stanisław was compensated with Lorraine (which would pass on his death, through his daughter, to the French), while the former Duke of Lorraine, Francis Stephen, was made heir to the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, which he would inherit in 1737.

Although fighting stopped after the preliminary peace in 1735, the final peace settlement had to wait until the death of the last Medici Grand Duke of Tuscany, Gian Gastone in 1737, to allow the territorial exchanges provided for by the peace settlement to go into effect. In March 1736 the Emperor persuaded Francis, his future son-in-law secretly (!) to exchange Lorraine for the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. If something would go wrong, Francis would become governor of the Austrian Netherlands.

Francis was Emperor Charles VI's favourite candidate for Maria Theresa's hand [2] and was to receive the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, in exchange for his renunciation of Lorraine, upon the incumbent, childless Grand Duke's death.[3] Gian Gastone de' Medici was the second cousin of Francis. [citation needed] Elisabeth of Parma had also wanted the Grand Duchy of Tuscany for her son Charles III of Spain; the Grand Duke of Tuscany, Gian Gastone de' Medici was related to Elisabeth via her great grandmother Margherita de' Medici. As a result Elisabeth son's could claim by right of being a descendant of Margherita.

On January 31, 1736 Francis had agreed to marry Maria Theresia. He hesitated three times (and laid down the feather before signing). Especially while his mother Élisabeth Charlotte d'Orléans and his brother Prince Charles Alexander of Lorraine were against the loss of Lorraine. On February 1, Maria Theresia send Francis a letter: she would withdraw from her future reign, when a male successor for her father would appear.

They married on February 12 in the Augustinian Church, Vienna. The wedding was held on February 14, 1736 and the (secret) treaty between the Emperor and Francis was signed on May 4, 1736. In January 1737, the Spanish troops withdrew from Tuscany, and were replaced by 6,000 Austrians.[4] On January 24, 1737 Francis received Tuscany from his father-in-law.[5] Until then, Maria Theresa was Duchess of Lorraine.

In June 1737 Francis went to Hungary again to fight against the Turks. In October 1738 he was back in Vienna. In December 17, 1738 the couple travelled south, accompanied by his brother Charles to visit Florence for three months. They arrived on January 20, 1739.

Greetings from Amsterdam, Taksen (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's irrelevant. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, everyone should note that the text added by Taksen is incorporated into the sourced text I added when I was improving this article to Good Article status. Now, the first unencyclopaedic detail I noticed is the exclamation mark in the following sentence: In March 1736 the Emperor persuaded Francis, his future son-in-law secretly (!) to exchange Lorraine for the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. Is that encyclopaedic? It certainly isn't. After I saw that and noticed the total lack of sources, there was no need to read anything else. Now that I read it, I noticed bad grammar (eg. February 1, Maria Theresia send Francis; there are more) and inconsistencies (They married on February 12 in the Augustinian Church, Vienna. The wedding was held on February 14). When I said that it was irrelevant, I meant that the third and fourth paragraph are too long; since this article concerns Maria Theresa only, those paragraphs should be shortened. There are some interesting information, of course, but it must not be added without reliable sources. It was not easy to get this article to GA status, so its quality should be maintained. If you can provide some reliable sources (in English, if possible), I would be glad to have some of those information inserted. I hope you understand, Taksen. Surtsicna (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo S. May be it is wiser to add the information from the Austrian catalogue (1980) in the German Wikipedia. (The rather heavy catalogue is not mentioned yet as a source.) Then you could ask there for a translation, because I am not trained as a translater between German and English, especcialy not while this almost legal matter.

First they married in church, two days later the party was held, with music and ballet, etc. Probably I used the wrong words.

At least you have a better idea what happened, and MT dared to visit Tuscany only once. May be more than half of the above information is copied from Wikipedia articles, unfortunately without references. I am sorry not willing to look for sources in English, that might be quite time consuming and I have quite a few other projects. I am not an expert on Maria Theresia, while I bought the cataloque on the exhibition, organized by the Austrian ministery of Science and Research, just recently for a few euro's. Greetings from Amsterdam. Taksen (talk) 09:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Maria Theresa's father compelled Francis to renounce his rights to Lorraine and told him: "No renunciation, no archduchess." Dawson Beales, 21.
  2. ^ Crankshaw, 22.
  3. ^ Crankshaw, 25.
  4. ^ Hale, Florence and the Medici, Orion books, p 192. London, 1977, ISBN 1-84212-456-0.
  5. ^ Maria Theresia und ihre Zeit. Exhibition from May 13 till October 1980 in Vienna, Schloss Schönbrunn, p. 28, see also pp. 37, 38, 41, 47, 52, 53 for the other details described here.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maria_Theresa&oldid=337648111"