Wedding of Leonie of Waldburg and Caspar count Matuschka, June 2024

[Tatiana Maria]

I recall at Tatjana's wedding it was announced that she would be keeping her name and all possible issue from their marriage would have  her surname. I remember thinking that to be very odd. I guess it makes sense now.
The King of the Netherlands is no stranger to title disputes. However, he should really talk some sense into his best friend!

The King's own family name and titles were inherited from his mother, grandmother and great-grandmother, so it would be quite odd if he were to attempt to persuade his friends that women should not be allowed to pass their names on to their children.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Mrs. Koenig deserves respect for her assiduous reporting and writing and like you I trust her reporting on this and similar stories which she seemingly sourced from the families involved. Nonetheless, she is – in common with all royal watchers – not flawless, and there have been many times when I have seen erroneous information appear on her blog, particularly concerning matters of law and judicial rulings.

But what do those flaws have to do with this? Her information here is not erroneous and based on facts.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

The King's own family name and titles were inherited from his mother, grandmother and great-grandmother, so it would be quite odd if he were to attempt to persuade his friends that women should not be allowed to pass their names on to their children.

The person in question isn’t head of the house of his branch, the Hohenems branch is a side branch of the Waldburg-Zeil line. This s a direct quote from the blog “Count Franz Clemens is reportedly at odds with other Waldburg zu Zeil family members as he wants to be included as a separate line in Gothaisches Genealogisches Handbuch. He wants the title of Count Waldburg zu Zeil-Lustenau-Hohenems to be recognized by the editors of Gothaisches Genealogisches Handbuch, as he wants to pass his title to his eldest daughter, Countess Tatjana, who is married to Philipp Eisl. His request was denied. He has been pushing his claim since 2011, according to a source.”

 

[SirGyamfi1]

One could ask the same question about the relatives who are boycotting a wedding over nonexistent titles.

Moved the general discussion about women inheriting to Royalty/Nobility and Gender.

It’s much more pointless for Franz Clemens considering that he is not head of the house and his request to have the Gotha genealogy handbook recognise his branch and titles as separate from the main line was denied and he has been doing this since 2011.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The person in question isn’t head of the house of his branch, the Hohenems branch is a side branch of the Waldburg-Zeil line.

That does not alter the fact that the King of the Netherlands inherited his family name, etc. from his mother.

But what do those flaws have to do with this? Her information here is not erroneous and based on facts.

It had to do with JR76's remark to which I replied, not with Mrs. Koenig's report which, as I stated, I trust.

It’s much more pointless for Franz Clemens considering that he is not head of the house and his request to have the Gotha genealogy handbook recognise his branch and titles as separate from the main line was denied and he has been doing this since 2011.

I do not perceive why any of those factors would render it more or less pointless than the others quarreling over nonexistent titles, so we will simply have to disagree.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

That does not alter the fact that the King of the Netherlands inherited his family name, etc. from his mother.

I never disputed that, but either way it has nothing to do with this because the King of the Netherlands is a recognised head of state whose succession rights were amended 100s of years ago due to absence of male heirs which is not the case here.

It had to do with JR76's remark to which I replied, not with Mrs. Koenig's report which, as I stated, I trust.

I know it had to do with responding to JR76, but it was unnecessary to say that “Marlene like most royal watchers is not flawless” in my humble opinion because Marlene was right in this case regardless of other flaws in other posts she’s made. At the end of the day, she presented facts and that’s what matters. If you trust her report, then why say that she’s not flawless and talking about erroneous information from other posts she’s made?

I do not perceive why any of those factors would render it more or less pointless than the others quarreling over nonexistent titles, so we will simply have to disagree.

Well we are on forum that not only discusses titles from jurisdictions where they are legally recognised, but also from deposed monarchies and nobles so it is what it is. Those factors matter because the person in question was requesting for these “nonexistent titles” to be recognised by the Gotha genealogical handbook, an organisation which exists to record and keep track of existent as well as “non existent” titles that you enthusiastically speak of.

Additionally, Franz Clemens was asking for his daughter to be recognised by the aforementioned organisation as heir to said non-existent titles when he’s not even the Head of the house. Also, since the titles are non-existent, then why is Franz Clemens putting a false claim on the Palast Hohenems website that he’s a “Princely Count”, which he is not legally, socially or even courtesy.

Finally, why did Franz Clemens ask the organisation to present his branch of the family as separate house when his line actually a side branch of the main line? Why would he care so badly when he’s in a jurisdiction that doesn’t even recognise titles as a last name? It doesn’t matter to you obviously, but it clearly mattered to him because he wanted recognition from the Gotha genealogy handbook and has been requesting since 2011 to have this be done, but his request was denied.

 

[valeas]

I am a scientist and a source means a reliable independant source and not just what somebody said because.....or wrote on a webiste without proof for science this is as if we all here believed whatever the Daily Mirror or Sun wrote
BUTI did not want to offend this lady or her admirers here.

I expected we all have the same idea of source but mine is a professional one as a scientists, my fault not to explain it.

Anyway I wish Franz Clemens luck, he invested not only a fortune but love& passion to all his projects, wouldn't leave it to some estranged nephew either

Nice evening everybody.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I am a scientist and a source means a reliable independant source and not just what somebody said because.....or wrote on a webiste without proof for science this is as if we all here believed whatever the Daily Mirror or Sun wrote
BUTI did not want to offend this lady or her admirers here.

I expected we all have the same idea of source but mine is a professional one as a scientists, my fault not to explain it.

Anyway I wish Franz Clemens luck, he invested not only a fortune but love& passion to all his projects, wouldn't leave it to some estranged nephew either

Nice evening everybody.

The “estranged nephew” is the son of his younger brother and none of his nephews complained about the property. Secondly, I already stated more than once that he bought out of his siblings share of the family property so they were obviously duly compensated. Therefore, it is not a property dispute. No one is or was challenging Franz Clemens’s right to pass the property to his daughter.

You are entitled to believe or trust Marlene’s blog on the matter, I put the link in because on the post is a list of sites that provide evidence on the matter. Marlene is not The Sun or The Daily Mail so the comparison is so off. Also, Marlene has been reporting on these matters for a long time and is a respected personality on these matters.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I never disputed that, but either way it has nothing to do with this because the King of the Netherlands is a recognised head of state whose succession rights were amended 100s of years ago due to absence of male heirs which is not the case here.

I would say the King being a head of state whose laws of succession have been amended (but not amended to allow female succession; that has always been permitted in the Kingdom of the Netherlands) has little to do with the suggestion that he should attempt to talk his friend out of allowing his daughter to carry on his family name.

Regarding your comment on my reply to JR76, I hoped my statement that I trusted Mrs. Koenig as a source in regards to this story and others was sufficient to prevent my post (which was a response to a more generalized comment) from being misconstrued. I regret that it was unsatisfactory to you.

[...] Why would he care so badly when he’s in a jurisdiction that doesn’t even recognise titles as a last name? It doesn’t matter to you obviously, but it clearly mattered to him because he wanted recognition from the Gotha genealogy handbook and has been requesting since 2011 to have this be done, but his request was denied.

Of course, and I certainly never disputed that he cared, but merely pointed out that his relatives also care deeply, probably more so (since at least Franz Clemens is seemingly not boycotting anyone's wedding over the dispute).

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Of course, and I certainly never disputed that he cared, but merely pointed out that his relatives also care deeply, probably more so (since at least Franz Clemens is seemingly not boycotting anyone's wedding over the dispute).

I think the issue was that Franz Clemens was misrepresenting his position with the family as well as not consulting the respective heads of his branch of the Waldburg family. Well, Franz Clemens nephews and nieces haven’t married yet so there’s no wedding for him to boycott yet. Well of course they care, his brother is head of the Hohenems branch, and Erich, is the head of the entire Waldburg-Zeil und Trachburg line so it concerns them.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Well of course they care, his brother is head of the Hohenems branch, and Erich, is the head of the entire Waldburg-Zeil und Trachburg line so it concerns them.

I was responding to your comment that it was "pointless" which implied there was nothing to care about.

 

[valeas]

The “estranged nephew” is the son of his younger brother and none of his nephews complained about the property. Secondly, I already stated more than once that he bought out of his siblings share of the family property so they were obviously duly compensated. Therefore, it is not a property dispute. No one is or was challenging Franz Clemens’s right to pass the property to his daughter.

You are entitled to believe or trust Marlene’s blog on the matter, I put the link in because on the post is a list of sites that provide evidence on the matter. Marlene is not The Sun or The Daily Mail so the comparison is so off. Also, Marlene has been reporting on these matters for a long time and is a respected personality on these matters.

I learn that you won't stop mocking on me, which is not polite
but explains your state of mind very well.
Always nice to see how non nobility dudes take things more serious than the family themselves.
Have a nice day Sir.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I learn that you won't stop mocking on me, which is not polite
but explains your state of mind very well.
Always nice to see how non nobility dudes take things more serious than the family themselves.
Have a nice day Sir.

because we are on a form that talks about facts albeit rather harmless and non life changing ones, not just opinions and what I stated are not opinions, but facts. I don’t talk about your presumed background, and I assume you’re “non nobility” yourself so I don’t get the point of this remark. Have a nice day yourself. Plus it’s rude and presumptuous to make claim on someone’s background you don’t know of.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

because we are on a form that talks about facts albeit rather harmless and non life changing ones, not just opinions and what I stated are not opinions, but facts. I don’t talk about your presumed background, and I assume you’re “non nobility” yourself so I don’t get the point of this remark. Have a nice day yourself. Plus it’s rude and presumptuous to make claim on someone’s background you don’t know of.

I believe that by "you won't stop mocking on me" valeas was referring to your decision to react to each of their posts with the laughing face: I have marked your latest post with the same reaction to illustrate what I am talking about. Did you or did you not intend that reaction to be "rude and presumptuous" as you put it?

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I believe that by "you won't stop mocking on me" valeas was referring to your decision to react to each of their posts with the laughing face: I have marked your latest post with the same reaction to illustrate what I am talking about. Did you or did you not intend that reaction to be "rude and presumptuous" as you put it?

Anyone is allowed to react or not to what anyone posts on the forum whether they take it seriously or not. My reaction is because I have repeatedly given an answer with good evidence regarding the topic of discussion, but the poster for some reason doubts the validity and credibility of what I am saying when I have not insulted them or the persons in the dispute.

Your reaction does not bother me because a fair number of people have backed my view and I have presented facts backed with clear evidence. I did not talk about anyone’s assumed background, which is arguably more rude and presumptuous than laughing reactions.

“Always nice to see non nobility dudes take things more seriously than the family” is a strange thing to say because the thing we are talking about is about someone’s actions in family dispute that has been recorded since 2011.
Also, the two respective heads of the family take the matter seriously and Marlene Koenig who has no stake in the matter other than reporting on it has presented facts which many acknowledge to be credible. We can disagree or agree on matters without making comments on assumed backgrounds of posters on the forum.

 

[Marengo]

Closed for review.