Talk:Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor

Name

Only for suggestion He was named and called "Kaiser Franz". His name by birth is "Franz" not "Francis". If WEBSTER'S say other.... will you Truth or copy Webster's? How does a visitor of Austria, "Franz II" will find, if he look up on this site? (Herbert Radke) --78.42.48.39 (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)--

Regnal names are commonly translated. That's why Queen Elizabeth II is called "Elisabeth II." in German.--MacX85 (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Was his name by birth "Franz"? He was born in Tuscany. It might be "Francesco". john k (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Since his parents would name him I bet it was Franz. But since legal documents often were given in Latin I would not be surprised if it was Franciscus.--MacX85 (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

Isn't Emperor Franz a saint in the Catholic Church now? user:J.J.

I'm going to have to go with "no" on that one. john k 22:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Maria Beatrice d'Este, Princess of Modena": She was born a Princess of Savoia. No such title "Prince of Modena" ever existed: "On July 14, 1814, Mary Beatrice's husband, Francis, became Duke Francis IV of Modena, Reggio, and Mirandola; he was the grandson of the last Este duke of Modena Ercole III. From this time forward, Mary Beatrice used the title "Duchess of Modena". [1]. --Wetman 11:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

No, JJ, I think you're thinking of Emperor Charles I of Austria, and that wasn't saint, it was blessed. -Alex 12.220.157.93 14:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

A couple of times on this page it says that Franz became Emperor of Austria in 1806 after abdicating as Holy Roman Emperor. In the article Holy Roman Empire it says he became Emperor of Austria in 1804 - which is what I have seen elsewhere. KM.

move to new name

Shouldn't this article be at Franz I of Austria, considering he was the most part of his life emperor of Austria and died as such, and not as Holy Roman Emperor? Gryffindor 09:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If it were moved, it should be to Francis I of Austria. However, I think his status as last Holy Roman Emperor is important enough to have it as the title of the page. Charles 14:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

And his status as emperor of Austria was less important? Gryffindor 15:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I cannot be the judge of that. What I do recognise is that there is importance in the status of Holy Roman Empire. Some, but not necessarily me, may argue that the status of Holy Roman Emperor is much more important than that of Emperor of Austria. No one can really define the "Empire of Austria" anyway. Charles 00:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that the Empire of Austria amounted, in practice, to the residue of lands left to Franz I after the Holy Roman Empire went to pieces, I think it's reasonable to consider it more important, yes. Choess 01:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems an appropriate change. Francis was HRE for 12 years, and Emperor of Austria for 31. That the precise territories meant by "Emperor of Austria" is unclear seems beside the point. (As I understand it, anyway, "Emperor of Austria" was not meant to be a territorial title, but a dynastic one - "Emperor of [the House of] Austria". That is to say, he was the Emperor who belonged to the House of Austria, and ruled over the lands belonging to the House of Austria. "Emperor of Austria" did not supercede any of Francis's lesser titles - he was still, notably, "Archduke of Austria" in context of his rule over Upper and Lower Austria proper. john k 01:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT up to us as encyclopedia editors to decide which is more important (reigning as Holy Roman Emperor or Emperor of Austria). All we have to do is determine what has been done in the scholarly literature; that is what we summarize here. Unfortunately in this case, it is clear as mud. The Library of Congress uses the subject heading "Francis I, Emperor of Austria". However, both the Chambers and the Websters biographical dictionaries list him as "Francis II". Noel S McFerran 02:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that "last title held" is generally the rule used. We have Charles III of Spain, not Charles VII of Naples, for instance. john k 10:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with john k. And I think in terms of "realpolitik" the Empire of Austria was definetly more important during the lifetime of Emperor Franz, than the completely derelict, hollow and meaningless late Holy Roman Empire. Neither holy, nor roman, nor an empire.... Gryffindor 19:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I will try this again: it's not for any of us to decide which is more important. We go by what has already been written. That is how an encyclopedia works. It gathers already published scholarship. The thing to determine is how Franz is called most frequently in written works in English. Noel S McFerran 22:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Applying "last title held" would implicitly create an ersatz rule not vetted on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). The rule that's already there is "Use the most senior title received by a royal or noble personage." One may be "senior" in terms of time, but I think here the term means "highest" title held (which is distinct from the matter-of-opinion notion of "most important"). But not all emperors are created equal: the Emperors of India and Brazil were not, thereby, of higher precedence than Continental kings. The "German Emperor" was, legally, the "first among equals" with respect to other German sovereigns, such as the Kings of Bavaria and Saxony. But the rulers of modern Russia, the Byzantine Empire and the Holy Roman Empire were emperors in the old sense of ruling over kings (e.g. the Kingdom of Georgia (Kartl-Kakheti) was a protectorate under the Russian empire). The Holy Roman Empire encompassed the Kingdom of Bohemia, and its Emperors were the suzerains of the Kings of Bohemia. The Emperor of Austria did not reign, in that capacity, over the Kingdom of Bohemia. Ergo "Holy Roman Emperor" is the more "senior" title. Aside from that, my sense is that Francis was and is known primarily as the last of the Holy Roman Emperors, as the man who relinquished that title lest Napoleon I take it from him, and as the man who presided over the decline of the Habsburg empire as a Great Power in Europe, of which the change from "Holy Roman Emperor" to "Emperor of Austria" was a manifestation. If no one can figure out an agreed-upon way of ascertaining which title is "most common in English" per Noel S McFerran's suggestion, then I think he should stay at Holy Roman Emperor. Lethiere 23:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The big issue here may actually be the one of ordinal. In contrast to my earlier positions, I suspect that he may be better known as "Francis II," because there was no other Francis II, and he needs to be distinguished from his grandfather. In that manner, it might make most sense to leave him where he is. john k 00:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the title should be Franz I, Emperor of Austria or at least have a reference to this title in the title. Technically, he was not Holy Roman Emperor. He was Holy Roman Emperor-Elect. To be a fully fleged emperor and gain all of the benefits, you needed a papal coronation. Emperor of Austria is a full emperor title that had not coronation requirements. Thus, Emperor of Austria is a higher title than Holy Roman Emperor-Elect. Emperor001 01:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Technically the last real emperor has been Charles V. No one of the 15 emperors who followed Charles V. - including Charles VII. of the houe of Wittelsbach - have been crowned by a pope. Technically only 20 emperors have been crowned by the pope. Technically Maximilian I., the first emperor-elect had the papal accreditation to use this title. After that it wasn´t necessary to be crowned by the pope to gain al benefits. The emperors de facto had all benefits without an coronation after Maximilian. Only his grandson Charles V. has been crowned again by a pope, but only to humilate the pope and show his power.--88.117.85.214 (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The title Holy Roman Emperor is certainly what was used though. It can be said that there was not even an Empire of Austria over which he was emperor. My opinion is that Holy Roman Emperor is a higher title than Emperor of (the House of) Austria. Either way, there was a Holy Roman Empire and someone at any given time fancied themselves to be the emperor. There hardly was an Empire of Austria. Charles 03:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a side question. If he was Francis II of Bohemia, who was Francis I of Bohemia? Was there a Francis I of Bohemia, and if notm why not? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If this is to stay at Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor based on the title being higher, rather than being moved to Francis I of Austria due to reign length, then should we not move Charles II, Duke of Parma to Charles I of Etruria? Higher title, after all. 74.132.163.46 (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If my opinion means anything, I think the article title should be "Franz I of Austria." The throne of the Holy Roman Emperor was almost entirely symbolic by the time of Franz's rule, and furthermore, he voluntarily took the title "Emperor of Austria" in 1804 as a response to Napoleon becoming Emperor of the French. -- LightSpectra (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have seen history book (in the US) that called him and the later HRE after Charles V just Emperors or Emperors of Austria instead. Is this actually common in the source to call him HRE, I think many more sources would simply call him or other later HRE Emperors with no territorial distinction or simply the Austrian emperor.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

But that wouldn't be correct-all the Emperors after Charles V used the title 'Roman Emperor Elect' (Latin: Imperator Romanorum Electus) as a way of using the Imperial title and dignity without the fuss of the coronation, which due to the political situation of the time was often either dangerous, costly, or both. Oh, and no, 'Roman Emperor Elect' does not mean the same as 'President Elect'. Personally, I think the fact he was HRE was significant-he was after all the last of the Emperors of that state, and the Holy Roman Empire, with its thousand and six year life (800-1806) is arguably more important and significant, historically anyway, than the 'Empire' of Austria which only lasted from 1804 to 1918.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Early life

I've written a section of Francis's childhood and youth prior to becoming Emperor, as this was lacking in the article beforehand. Thoughts? Lec CRP1 17:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Doppelkaiser (Double emperor)

I dont know why someone put a citation needed to the word Doppelkaiser (Double emperor). In the germanspeaking Wikipedia there is no controversy about this term, as it is the appropiate description in German for someone who was twice times an emperor at the same time. During my history lessons in school (in Austria) Franz II./I. was allready named like this, and even today he is called so, see below some weblinks (unfortunately in German):

• 1
• 2 (German Monarchists, even when I dont support their ideology, they are a serious source for THIS question)
• 3

-- Rfortner 17:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Successor?

Why is Frederick William III of Prussia listed as the successor to Francis II in the side box? 76.70.117.75 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, he should not be. john k (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

I am planning to revise this article and nominate it for GA. Just one note - there are multiple non-neutral statements, including one mentioning the "horrible and despicable" acts of the French Revolution. DCItalk 22:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

age and/or year wrong?

There is a picture whose current caption is "Francis II at age 25, 1792". The top of the article says he was born in 1768, so would not reach 25 until 1793. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

"Pretended to be a family man"?

I think the current editors comment that Francis "pretended to be a family man" is highly subjective and not born out by any evidence shown in the article. His inability to save an older aunt that he had never known is hardly proof he was not a family man. He had many children by the Empress, Maria Theresa, and as far as I can see he was devoted to her and to his children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Chamberlain (talk • contribs) 15:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 28 January 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. See some general agreement to rename this article; however, it appears insufficient enough to call it a consensus. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors may in a few weeks or months open a new requested move in an attempt to garner consensus for the highest and best title for this article. To help in this regard, here is a gentle reminder that reliable sources are your friends. ♥Happy ♥Hearts ♥Day! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  03:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor → Francis I of Austria – He held the title of Emperor of Austria for a longer period of time that he held the title ofHoly Roman Emperor. He ruled over the Austrian Empire for 31 years, while he ruled over the Holy Roman Empire for 14 years. 2601:241:300:C930:841C:1F52:9AB4:14BE (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Yet the "Holy Roman Emperor" is a more prominent title. Based on your rationale, the title of Prince Charles' article should remain "Charles, Prince of Wales" even after his ascension to the throne because he has been an heir for 60 years. When an individual is in a higher place, he will normally become known by the title attributed to that position. As a reminder, Francis was not only the Emperor of Austria, he was the King of Hungary and Croatia, King of Bohemia, and King of Lombardy–Venetia. In fact, his reign as King of Hungary and Croatia was longer than that of Austria. Keivan.f^Talk 00:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Both titles are Emperor, so one could argue that they are equivalent.

It's not about equality, it's about commonality and prominence. He was initially the Holy Roman Emperor and then became Emperor of Austria. And by the way, which empire was greater in power and vastness? If I remember correctly it was the Holy Roman Empire. Keivan.f^Talk 00:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support We normally favour the final title. Arguing which Empire was more "prominent" is pretty pointless - the parts of the HRE not directly ruled by Vienna were effectively independent, so in terms of real power there was relatively little difference between before and after. Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I think we just need to find out what his common name was. How is he referred to in the reliable source? Holy Roman Emperor or Emperor of Austria? Keivan.f^Talk 16:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment For what it's worth, "Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor" brings up About 648,000 results on Google, while "Francis I of Austria" brings up About 69,500,000 results.
    • Links? Keivan.f^Talk 04:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Franz Grillparzer

Was Franz Grillparzer really censored? He was born in 1791 and the Holy Roman Empire was abolished in 1806, so he could be at most 15 years old. 217.211.210.142 (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Better primary photo

In my opinion, the current portrait of Franz II is not exactly a very 'monarchical' portrait, though it portrays him in royal attire. I believe the painting by Friedrich von Amerling: "Emperor Franz I of Austria in his Coronation Robes" would be better for this article. Below is the painting to which I refer. How do other editors feel about this?

• 

i don't really agree. He would be too small. Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Arms of the Count of Luxembourg.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 July 2023

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) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor → Francis I of Austria – This move was last proposed in January 2018 and resulted in a no consensus close. That RM was opened based on the rationale that Francis was longer Emperor of Austria than Holy Roman Emperor. While this is true, it is not enough to support a move. Yet, this is lengthier tenure is reflected in reliable sources, as Francis I of Austria is more popular than Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor in Google Books. [2][3] estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and clear ambiguity, as Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor, was also based in Austria. The Google Books search doesn't really prove anything, as both are most likely to be referred to as simply Francis I/II or Emperor Francis I/II. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp - Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor was never "of Austria". It was Maria Theresa who was suo jure Archduchess of Austria. Can you provide in reliable sources to show that Francis I was ever referred to as "Francis I of Austria"? estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  What I said was it's ambiguous, which it clearly is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  You said its ambiguous, and provided no evidence. It can't be ambiguous just because you say so. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  If you can't see why it might be ambiguous then no further discussion is worthwhile. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  By your logic of someone being referred to by a title that I cannot find anywhere in reliable sources, then Ferdinand I of Austria is also ambiguous with Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor. Would you be opposed to Francis I, Emperor of Austria? estar8806 (talk) ★ 12:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I personally would not support "Francis I, Emperor of Austria". It is not consistent with how the pages on other Austrian emperors have been titled. I think it's not a question of ambiguity, but to determine with which title he's mostly associated. Is it the "Holy Roman Emperor" because it was more traditional and deeply rooted in history, or "Emperor of Austria" the most prominent title that he held at the time of his death? If the latter is the case, then User:Johnbod could be right and we could format his page in line with other Austrian emperors. If not, it probably should remain as it is. Someone who's really familiar with the subject could help. Keivan.f^Talk 16:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support per last time. Apart from the above, we normally use the final title. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I cannot see that either numeral or title is more prominent in the sources, so it comes down to final title vs 'higher' title. I vote for the status quo. Srnec (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Germany has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Austria has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unnecessary. And causes ambiguity with the earlier emperor Francis I. Walrasiad (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too much risk of ambiguity in the proposed title. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

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.

Changing image

Was there any consensus on changing the image? I don't think this would suit him the best since much of his reign is known due to the Napoleonic Wars and his uniform would fit him the best. While I do agree that his coronation portrait is well-known, it was painted in 1832, so his appearance might have differed from him in 1815. G0dzillaboy02 (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)