Talk:Maria Theresa/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

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)

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)

  • 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)

___*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)

  • Neutral Both are seen, but Theresa (lazy or not) is the commonest in English. A note is needed to say that it was/is sometimes spelt "Theresia".86.42.206.96 (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - 'Maria Theresa' is in common use in English, including among historians. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)


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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

  • I think the style of HI&RM only dates from the Ausgleich. I don't know whether the wife of the HRE got a special style of address - but as Queen of Bohemia and Hungary, she'd have been at least an HM anyway. AlexTiefling 09:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • 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)
    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)
  • Er, you're right. I must have been half asleep. I honestly thought you'd posted something from 1869, not 1859. AlexTiefling 14:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

'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)

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)

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)


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 

-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)


Related with her husband

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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.
  • The title I proposed would promote her to the rank of a sovereign, which she was. The current title is fit for a mere consort. Surtsicna (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


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)
  • Support - obviously Surtsicna (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)

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:

  • distinction between the only Archduchess regnant of Austria and a royal consort who also happened to be named Maria Theresa of Austria. Surtsicna (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • '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)
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)
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)
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)
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.

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)

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)

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 nudge in the right direction, 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.

Well, her father called himself King of Castile, Aragon, Leon, both Sicilies, Jerusalem, Hungary, Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Rama, Serbia, Galitia, Lodomeria, Cumania, Bulgaria, Navarra, Grenada, Toledo, Valencia, Galicia, Majorca, Sevilla, Sardinia, Cordova, Corsica, Murcia, Jaen, the Algarve, Algeciras, Gibraltar, the Canary Islands, the islands of India and Mainland of the Ocean sea. She might have claimed to be his successor as queen of those kingdoms (and non-kingdoms) and she might have claimed to be a princess of those kingdoms (and non-kingdoms). Yet etc could also refer to something way different.
If you want to find out which titles were claimed/used by the Habsburgs, my advice is to first search the tertiary sources (such as Wikipedia itself and other internet pages) and then use Google Book Search to confirm that what you found is correct. I am not aware of any book that's all about Habsburg titles. Full titles of Habsburg monarchs are usually given in their biographies. Surtsicna (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the advice. I will do just that.

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)

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)
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)
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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
I agree. The infbox just confuses me 0_o. -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
So, should we put Bohemia back along with the second reign? Surtsicna (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure! :) -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

One second Surtsicna, must go find the book! -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)

I think it's irrelevant. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
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)

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)

Intellectually inferior to her sons

This article includes a few statements about Maria Theresa's intellectual prowess or the lack thereof. It would be better to have clearer references for these statements.

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment! The source says that Maria Theresa was "from an intellectual viewpoint, more limited than the sons" and that Joseph was "intelectually superior to Maria Theresa". It goes on to explain how she was limited and why it is understandable. The article itself mentions it in the Civil rights sections. Surtsicna (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Pre-FAC comments from Maria

Hello, I was asked by Surtsicna to comment on this article's progress toward FAC; so sorry for the wait! Overall I think it's in okay shape, but quite a bit or re-reading and re-focusing is needed before taking on FAC. I still suggest a thorough Peer Review, with insight from several editors who are familiar with writing high-quality articles dedicated to royalty figures. Detailed comments/suggestions/questions are listed below:

Lead
  • Per WP:ITALICS, I don't think Maria Theresa's full name in the lead should be italicized. Other monarchs, such as George III of the United Kingdom (FA) and Victoria of the United Kingdom (GA) simply list the full names in normal type. Also, I don't think the German designation is correct, either, as it's not a translation.
  • Maria Theresa promulgated financial and educational reforms, with the assistance of Count Friedrich Wilhelm von Haugwitz and Gottfried van Swieten, promoted commerce and the development of agriculture, and reorganised Austria's ramshackle military, all of which strengthened Austria's international standing, but refused to allow religious toleration. -- This is quite a large sentence, and it quicly switches from (seemingly) positive effects of her reign to the negative. How about cutting it in half, and maybe adding "although she... etc., she refused to allow...?"
  • The lead needs better organization, and focus in each separate paragraphs. I often find writing them the hardest part of writing an entire article, so I know how difficult it is to get just right! For example, chronologically speaking, her marriage and number of children (including the most notable ones) should be introduced before the already mentioned friction/disagreements with Joseph II and his father.
  • Nowhere does it say for how long she reigned; I would think that's something that should be mentioned in the first paragraph.
  • She criticised and disapproved of many of Joseph's actions. She vehemently resisted the First Partition of Poland, but Joseph and her chancellor, Prince Kaunitz, induced her to authorise it. -- Sentence varying is something that needs work on throughout; careful with beginning sentences with "She" and "Maria Theresa"; as such, you can combine these sentences to do away with the double "She": "criticised and disapproved..., vehemently resisting the First Partition of Poland..." etc.
  • Maria Theresa was intellectually inferior to her sons,[6] but possessed qualities appreciated in a monarch: warm heart, practical mind, firm determination, sound perception, and, most importantly, readiness to acknowledge the mental superiority of her advisers. -- This is interesting, but one must be careful with such opinions, especially in the lead. I don't see this information further in the article (correct me if I'm wrong), which poses problems per WP:LEAD; the lead section should summarize the entire article. Also, it's presenting opinion as fact; if this is paraphrasing someone, or displaying current academic thought, it should state just as much. She is considered by current scholars to have been..., or some other similar interjection, perhaps?
Birth and background
  • Maria Theresa resembled her mother and a year-younger sister, Archduchess Maria Anna. She had large blue eyes, fair hair with a slight tinge of red and a wide mouth. Her body was large and notably strong. -- Similar to my point above about opinions passed off as facts, it may be helpful to point out here where it's noted that she was strong, who remarked on her large blue eyes, etc. It's not necessary, per se, but it could give it more esteem, depending on where the info comes from. (A family member, or historian maybe?)
  • The inbreeding comment makes much more sense now, thanks for the clarification. :)
Heiress presumptive
  • Charles sought the other European powers' approval. They exacted harsh terms: England demanded that Austria abolish its overseas trading company, the Ostend Company. -- This is slightly fragmentary; from what I understand here, England only gave their approval for Charles' ability to choose his own heir(s), if, in return, Austria abolish the Ostend Company. Is that right? The "harsh term" is therefore a compromise, but it's not stated for certain in the article that Charles agreed to it. Could some rewording/clarification be done here?
  • On a similar note, because these events happened before Maria Theresa was born, shouldn't it go in the previous section? The article goes from her baptism, to her looks, to events four years before her birth, then back to her childhood. Kind of confusing. Also, I believe that her father's disappointment would be given more context were this information about his past dallying and deal-making made known at the beginning.
  • Her spelling and punctuation were offbeat and she lacked the formal manner and speech which had characterised her Habsburg predecessors. -- "offbeat" is a strange adjective to use here, as it seems so very... contemporary. :) I'm not sure what is meant, however; unusual? Inexact?
Marriage
  • The issue of Maria Theresa's marriage was raised early in her childhood -- wording difficulty here, as the word "issue" typically signifies something specific with royalty articles, correct? Question? Subject?
  • In the first paragraph here, there is an over usage of "Maria Theresa"; can a synonym be used intermittently to break things up? "young heiress" or something similarly useful and descriptive?
  • news reached Vienna that he had died of smallpox, which upset Maria Theresa. -- I always love when articles like this inject some life and personality in with the royal intrigue and pomp. However, I'm left wondering, why was she upset? She hadn't even met the guy; is there a quote or testament as to how/why she was affected?
      • I'll try to find explanation. I guess it's because she expected to meet her Prince Charming but instead learned that he had died. The source says that she "imagined she was a widow". Surtsicna (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Leopold Clement's younger brother, Francis Stephen, was invited to Vienna. -- Although it's of course implied, it really should be re-insinuated here that Francis Stephen was invited in order to secure Maria Theresa's hand in his brother's stead.
    • Formally, Francis Stephen was invited to Vienna to finish his education. Charles was then seriously considering arranging a marriage between Maria Theresa and a more significant prince, while having Francis Stephen there as a backup. Surtsicna (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • He tended to leave the day to day administration to Maria Theresa. Unlike many princesses of her time, Maria Theresa truly loved her husband, but the marriage suffered because of his infidelity. -- So much is said, but too quickly to take it all in, I fear. Why would he leave the administration to his wife? How is it known that she loved her husband? What about this infidelity? Known mistresses? Like most of the article so far, I really feel like some direct quotes, or words/notes from those present would really help raise the encyclopedic quality of the opinions espoused. Do the sources quote letters or anything to that effect?
  • In 1738, following Francis Stephen's dismissal from his military post... -- this is the first note of him having a military post. What was it?
War of the Austrian Succession
  • Francis and Maria Theresa blankly refused. -- "blankly" isn't a very descriptive adjective; as such, I'm not sure what's meant here. Adamantly?
  • The thought of this worried England. -- Why?
  • Francis urged Maria Theresa to reach a rapprochement with Prussia, as did England. -- Rather than italicize "rapprochement", simply link to it; it comes from the French, but per the article I don't think it should be italicized as a foreign word, since it's been appropriated by other languages.
Seven Years War
  • Frederick's invasion of Saxony in August 1756 began the Seven Years' War. Empress Maria Theresa and Kaunitz wished to exit the war with possession of Silesia. -- I'm not exactly where the transition between the previous section and this one comes into play, as almost ten years separates the two; can we have a little more context here? After the previous war, was there much discontent? (Obviously, yes, but it should be stated.) Whose decision was it to invade?
  • Giving Austria huge subsidies came back to haunt France. It could not bolster defences in New France; the British easily captured Louisbourg in 1758, and went on to conquer all of New France. -- Careful with wording here, as "came back to haunt" is far too colloquial and "it" (France?) is ambigious. "France, having previously given large subsidies to Austria, could not bolster defences..." perhaps?
  • Maximilian von Browne commanded the Austrian troops. -- Initially? The following sentence says he was quickly replaced.
  • Frederick was startled by Lobositz; -- by the loss at Lobositz? Let's be as clear as possible here.
  • France suffered a crushing defeat at Krefeld that June. French forces withdrew to the Rhine. -- France... French... repetition. The country's forces, perhaps?
  • Prussia proceeded to kick the Austrians out of Saxony, -- far too colloquial. Drove them out, instead?
  • exacted harsh terms on France, as it was forced to relinquish most of her American colonies. -- who is "it"? France, who is also "she"?
Family life
  • The three previous sections are decidedly very low on information regarding Maria Theresa, so this section on her family life is quite a change of direction. I think the main fault I see with the previous sections about the various wars is that they seem more like a summary of the history; rather, it should focus primarily on Maria Theresa's involvement in said history. Because this article should be dedicated to her, I suggest implementing more personal touches where applicable/available. How many of these choices during the war were hers to make? How did she feel about the crushing defeats and small victories? Quotes? While reading, try to always bring it back to her. It's similar to writing an article about an author; while discussing their works, you should always think of ways to tie it back to him/her, rather than focusing solely on the book/poem/whatever. Am I being clear?
  • The first child, Maria Elisabeth (1737–1740), came a little less than a year after the wedding. Again, the child's gender caused great disappointment and so would the next two births, for the first three children born to Maria Theresa were girls, including Maria Anna, the eldest surviving child, and Maria Carolina (1740–1741). -- The wording here is confused. "came" should be "was born". "for the first three children born to Maria Theresa were girls, including" is also unnecessary, as their names alone denote the fact that they were female. I suggest cutting it to: "Again, the child's gender caused great disappointment, and so would the next two births: Maria Anna, the eldest surviving..." etc.
  • Maria Theresa asserted that, had she not been almost always pregnant, she would have gone into battle herself. -- I love this! In the several quotes from her used so far, I really get a sense of her feisty nature. If there's more to be had, use them judiciously.
Religious views and policies
  • Like all members of the House of Habsburg, Maria Theresa was a Roman Catholic, and a devout one as well. -- Can this be shortened to "was a devout Roman Catholic"?
    • I am not sure. Every member of the House of Habsburg was a Roman Catholic, but some were not devout Roman Catholics. For example, Mary of Hungary was accused of being too close to Lutheranism. Surtsicna (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Reforms
  • Financially, in 1775, the budget was balanced for the first time in memory. -- In whose memory? Would "in recent history" be a better choice of phrase?
  • Her decision to have her children inoculated after the epidemic of 1767 was responsible for changing Austrian physicians' negative view of inoculation -- I'm guessing the epidemic was of smallpox, as was the inoculation?
    •  Done Yes, the epidemic was mentioned in the Family life section; it was the epidemic that took the lives of her daughter and daughter-in-law and that nearly killed Maria Theresa herself. Surtsicna (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The caption describing Maria Theresa "observing special rules to achieve a high moral tone" in the theatre, is rather random. Could her influence on the arts be included somewhere in the article itself? Also, it is spelled "theater" elsewhere.
Death and legacy
  • Her introduction of compulsory schooling, as a means of Germanisation, eventually triggered the revival of the Czech culture. -- Wouldn't this be better placed in the "Reforms" section?
  • As you've probably seen, I've removed the italics from the quote boxes per WP:QUOTE. The dashes that I added to one box may be useful for all if you want to further differentiate the quote from the speaker/writer.

There's quite a bit here to work on, so I hope it helps. As I said, it's a good overview, but the prose and sometimes lack of focus makes me question whether it's quite ready for FAC. These things take time. :) Perhaps consider a prolonged PR first, with some more copy-editing throughout to ensure the prose is as professional and engaging as it should be. I made a few changes/corrections throughout, but more may be needed, as I'm not an "expert". Great work so far, though -- I enjoyed reading something so far out of my comfort zone! If you need anything else, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. María (habla conmigo) 18:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all of these helpful remarks! I am in no hurry to nominate the article for FA; I just wanted to know how I can improve it. I will now be working on all of the above-mentioned problems. Surtsicna (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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))

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)
There wouldn't be any. The archdukes and archduchess of Austria who were issue of the archduke-kings were Royal Highnesses. They did not become Imperial Highnesses until the proclamation of the Emperordom of Austia. There was no "Holy Roman Imperial Family" to be Imperial Highnesses. The (elected) heir even was usually a king and styled Majesty. Seven Letters 18:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Page title

I've long been uncomfortable with this page title. It neither follows the naming convention nor common sense. Effectively, it treats Maria Theresa as a consort, rather than a ruler in her own right. "of Austria" does not represent Maria Theresa's highest title, but her family name; as such this title is more like Mariana of Austria than like Ferdinand I of Austria, who held the title of Emperor of Austria, while Maria Theresa was merely an archduchess. As a ruler in her own right, Maria Theresa's highest title was Queen of Hungary - and this is what she was called in English before 1745, "the Queen of Hungary." I'd think WP:NCROY would demand that her article ought to be at Maria Theresa of Hungary. This, however, would be sort of a silly title. As such, I think this would be a very strong case for simply ignoring NCROY and going with the simpler title of simply Maria Theresa. She is certainly the principal "Maria Theresa" in history, and that already redirects here. john k (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely get what you are saying. This is certainly a tricky one when you think of the guidelines. I'm not a fan of mixing territorial designations either of different ranks (Maria Theresa of Austria and Hungary (and Bohemia!)). Seven Letters 23:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are the biographies:

  • Bright, James Franck: Maria Theresa (1897)
  • Oertel, William: Maria Theresa (1905)
  • Maxwell Moffat, Mary: Maria Theresa (1911)
  • Leland Goldsmith, Margaret: Maria Theresa of Austria (1936)
  • Morris, Constance Lily: Maria Theresa: the last conservative (1937)
  • Peabody Gooch, George: Maria Theresa: and other studies (1965)
  • Pick, Robert: Empress Maria Theresa: the earlier years, 1717-1757 (1966)
  • Tabori, Paul: Maria Theresa (1969)
  • Crankshaw, Edward: Maria Theresa (1970)
  • ? McGill, William J.: Maria Theresa (1972)
  • Roider, Karl: Maria Theresa (1973)
  • Nemes, Robert: Maria Theresa: Habsburg ruler, 1740-1780 (2001)
  • Mahan, J. Alexander: Maria Theresa of Austria

The choice is obvious. Surtsicna (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we do an RM? john k (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I would support it as primary usage. Much like her daughter, Marie Antoinette. Also, we should create redirects with the Hungarian and Bohemian titles. Seven Letters 16:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


Requested move

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: Moved Born2cycle (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Maria Theresa of Austria → Maria Theresa — She is quite clearly the primary topic for Maria Theresa. The current title itself does not comply with NCROY, which tells us to use her highest title. Her highest title was "Queen of Hungary," not "Archduchess of Austria." NCROY would suggest, then, a title of Maria Theresa of Hungary, but this, too, would be a bad title, imo. Given that the simpler title is very clearly a primary topic and helps us avoid this issue, why not use it? john k (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Support, as nominator. john k (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, I see no reason not to use the simplest name.--Kotniski (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While there is no other Maria Theresa, there are numerous Mary Theresa and Marie Therese, and this could itself cause confusion since these are all the same name, just in different languages. Depending on the author and time period of a source, these names could be interchanged easily. Maria Theresa should be a disambiguation page that directs users to go here, but also list other women that Maria Theresa could be confused with. Also, it is not quite correct to say that the archducal title was inferior to the regal one. If anything, I think the title should be Maria Theresa of Austria, Queen of Hungary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanderliptak (talk • contribs) 16:02, 15 September 2010
  • Support As an extraordinary exception. Current title is not her highest title, although it is one of her ruling titles, it names her as a consort when she was also Queen and Archduchess in her own right. Seven Letters 16:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Maria Theresa is not (quite) comparable to Napoleon. If there were a flower named after Napoleon, or a passing reference to him in an article on children's clothing, then he quite possibly would be called just "Napoleon". The same is not true of Maria Theresa. She would be referred to as "Maria Theresa of Austria" or the "Holy Roman Empress Maria Theresa" or something similar. Since I am not an advocate of "maiden names", I would prefer "Maria Theresa, Holy Roman Empress". Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • There is the Maria Theresa thaler, there are Maria Theresa chandeliers, etc. Seven Letters 16:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Sigh. Nothing will ever get moved, will it? We're stuck with whatever titles got set 6 or 7 years ago, and no move of any kind will ever get any consensus. john k (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Vote on your own RM. Although it is implied, say it again down here. Seven Letters 16:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The goal is not to move articles - nor to stop articles from being moved. There are lots of articles which get moved (including ones about royals), and lots which don't. I do think that some people might concentrate more on improving the content of articles, rather than spending so much time suggesting moves. Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad to hear you think that. I tend to think that it's not really any of my business to worry about what other people choose to spend their time on wikipedia doing. We're all here, giving our time for free, and if I want to spend some of that time trying to get articles moved, I don't see how that gives other people the right to make disdainful comments about it. And this applies whether you are referring to me specifically or not. john k (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per rationales already given. The current title isn't in line with the convention and "Maria Theresa" redirects here. The proposed solution simplifies and makes clear that she is the primary topic (which she is). That itself is useful information many readers might not know. Srnec (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Noel S McFerran, and because this move brings the article name no more into NCROY compliance than the current one, which has the advantage of being both consistent with other Wiki article titles for rulers above the rank of duke and is a more common initial reference for her in writing than the proposed change. FactStraight (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

late comment about the name

While there is no other Maria Theresa, there are numerous Mary Theresa and Marie Therese, and this could itself cause confusion since these are all the same name, just in different languages. Depending on the author and time period of a source, these names could be interchanged easily. Maria Theresa should be a disambiguation page that directs users to go here, but also list other women that Maria Theresa could be confused with.

That's what Wikipedia:Hatnotes are for. In general I also prefer the new name because it's in line with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It is also what disambiguation pages are for, if I am not mistaken. Which is why I suggested it. But my mistake for suggesting a page link to other pages, your idea of having the page link to other pages was much better, yes. No need to mention that the sarcasm is unnecessary, it was; but so was the late comment that contributed nothing but rather mocked a suggestion. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I did not intend to mock you, I just pointed out the relevant guidelines, there's really no need for this attitude. The various methods of linking are all acceptable, I was simply pointing out the specific documentation that I believe makes this case lean in favor of hatnotes rather than full disambiguation. It stands to reason that not everyone reading this is aware of every particular policy or guideline, so it should be helpful to explicitly link to them. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Land reform

IT was quite sugnificant and led to fundamental changes in society in Eastern Galiica. I'm not sure why someone is trying to remove it. Another thing worthy of expansion is the religious reform with respect to eastern-rite Catholics, which under her and Joseph II also completely transformed eastern Galician society (see this article:Western Ukrainian Clergy).Faustian (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I've been told by some users who unofficially reviewed the article that the article should stick to information directly related to Maria Theresa herself; instead of mentioning all decisions she ever made, we should mention only those that affected her personally - at least that's the way I understood it. I think it would be great if you could make a connection between the land reform and Maria Theresa herself or shorten it a bit and fit it directly into the Reforms section. Surtsicna (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense. Do you think a section about her impact on society, or her legacy, might be a good place for such things?Faustian (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

Can you elaborate here what needs be clarified in the sentence: "Notwithstanding her strong Judeophobia, Maria Theresa supported Jewish commercial and industrial activity"? Thank you. Surtsicna (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Salic Law?

Now I know that the passage about Austria being subject to Salic Law is quoted from a historian (and therefore probably should stay there), but from what I (an Austrian) have learned in school, it's actually nonsense. The Privilegium Minus expressedly gave the ruling family of Austria (then the Babenbergs) the right of female succession, so at least the Archduchy of Austria itself shouldn't have been bound by Salic Succession Law. Maybe only the other Habsburgian possessions within the Roman Empire were? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.111.70.47 (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That was still Salic law; the females could succeed only when there were no male agnates left. However, the sentence was indeed misleading, as succession by a female would have been possible even without the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713; the Mutual Pact of Succession, signed in 1703, enabled accession of a female, but placing Joseph's daughters ahead of Charles's. The only thing the Pragmatic Sanction changed was the order of succession - Joseph's daughters were displaced by Charles's. Surtsicna (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead image

Following the format for monarchs, the use of a representative state portrait in full figure is preferable in the infobox. If anyone wants to take a closer look at the face, they can either click on the image or scroll down the article for other images. See as example Louis XIV of France, Louis XVI of France, Napoleon I, George III of the United Kingdom, etc. If anyone has convincing arguments why this should not be the case here, please respond. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Following what format? I am under impression that it's up to the editors to decide which image suits the infobox best. It also seems natural that a reader would want to see the subject's face clearly without having to zoom in, scroll down or go to another page. There are numerous examples of articles in which the full figure portrait is not used in the infobox, including her contemporaries, Catherine the Great and Frederick the Great. Surtsicna (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Gryffindor, please, don't edit-war. An edit you made was reverted - so what? Just try to seek a compromise, as you are the one trying to make a change to a previously stable article. You are not dealing with an editor who is refusing to discuss so there is no reason to keep reverting. Obviously, we both want what's best for this article so let's just take some time to discuss what it is but please respect the consensus. To anyone who might be interested, there is a similar discussion at Talk:Empress Elisabeth of Austria#Lead image. Surtsicna (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Another comment about the "page name"

Why "Theresa"? I had never seen or heard that name before in association to that person until today. In the German speaking World (where she lived) she is known as Maria Theresia. In the scan of her signature it is plain to see, that that was the name she used herself. If "Theresa" is the name commonly used in English history books, then I guess that unfortunately that has to be the lemma, but I maintain that at least the birth name at the beginning of the article should be corrected. --BjKa (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi! This Wikipedia is in English and English speaking historians almost always call her Maria Theresa. I don't suppose you have read a lot of English language texts about her if you only noticed the missing "i" today. Anyway, throughout Europe, she is known as Maria Theresia, Maria Teresa, Maria Theresa, Marija Terezija, Mária Terézia, Marie-Thérèse, etc. I am afraid it is not our job to reinvent the wheel. Surtsicna (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't answer the question, why is she referred to as Theresa when her name was Theresia? You say 'English speaking historians almost always' misspell her name this way - do you have a source for this information? If it's true, is it Wikipedia policy to perpetuate errors?88.167.22.75 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
It is Wikipedia policy to use the most commonly used name. Thus, we have Cher instead of Cherilyn Sarkisian, Charlemagne instead of Carolus, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor instead of Karl or Carlos, and Maria Theresa instead of Maria Theresia. Of course there is a source for that information. Look at the bibliography and references in the article. Surtsicna (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I included it at the beginning under the German translation of her full name.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Names in lead

I am not sure the lead sentence should feature her name in four languages before telling the reader who she actually was. It makes no sense, to be honest. The lead used to mention only her name in German, as German was her native language. Now that Hungarian and Czech have been added, I am afraid it's only a matter of time until the Croatian, Italian, Polish and French versions are inserted as well - and why wouldn't they be, if Hungarian and Czech names are there? Furthermore, the German name is the only one used by English language sources and thus the only one that can be of use to the reader; other names (including the one in my native language) are merely trivia. Surtsicna (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. FactStraight (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
And what do you have against the Polish and Croatian versions? I mean she DID bear the royal titles of those countries too, so if I'd know the Polish and Croatian name I'd insert them myself. Still, arguing for the removal of the alternate names due to their existence alone is quite pathetic. If Wikipedia's point would be to REMOVE stuff, it wouldn't have been filled up with all this vast amount of information in the first place. So the alternate names are there to stay and in fact you're welcome to add more if you wish (although I fail to see the reason why an Italian or French version should be added). -- CoolKoon (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Italian and French version should then be added because Maria Theresa was Grand Duchess of Tuscany, Duchess of Milan, Duchess of Mantua, Duchess of Parma and Piacenza, Duchess of Luxembourg, Countess of Hainaut, Countess of Namur, etc. It now occurred to me that the Romanian name would have to be added as well, as she was Grand Princess of Transylvania, right? A case could be made to insert the Serbian name too - after all, Maria Theresa did rule a part of Serbia and did use the title Queen of Serbia. If you want, I can find even more languages. P.S. How could I forget Dutch and Waloon? Maria Theresa was Duchess of Brabant, Duchess of Lothier and Duchess of Limburg, so why not add the respective versions too?

Wikipedia's point is not to add all sorts of trivia either - otherwise we'd add her name in Chinese as well. Why not, if it exists? I would be willing to bet that she never signed herself using the Croatian version of her name, for not only was she unacquainted with the language, but the spelling was more than likely different than the modern one. The alternate name will be inserted if the community agrees they should be there; there seems to be no consensus to insert them as of 21 June 2012. The first sentence in this section explains what I've got against all the alternative names and you haven't addressed that. This is what you suggest the lead should look like:


Maria Theresa/Archive 1
The Empress in 1759, by Martin van Meytens

Maria Theresa Walburga Amalia Christina (German: Maria Theresia; Czech: Marie Terezie; Hungarian: Mária Terézia; Croatian: Marija Terezija; Polish: Maria Teresa; French: Marie-Thérèse; Italian: Maria Teresa; Romanian: Maria Terezia; Serbian: Marija Terezija/Марија Терезија; Dutch: Maria Theresia; Slovene: Marija Terezija; Slovak: Mária Terézia; Ukrainian: Марія Терезія; 13 May 1717 – 29 November 1780) was the only female ruler of the Habsburg dominions and the last of the House of Habsburg. She was the sovereign of Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Bohemia, Mantua, Milan, Lodomeria and Galicia, the Austrian Netherlands and Parma. By marriage, she was Duchess of Lorraine, Grand Duchess of Tuscany and Holy Roman Empress.

That's two three rows of names, 10 11 14 names altogether to be precise, before finally describing who she was. That is all but encyclopaedic and recommended. I ask you, what purpose do they serve? Maria Theresa herself never used them, her subjects who spoke those languages probably didn't spell them that way and they will be of no use to an ordinary reader. This is why I strongly oppose adding any names to the lead except for her native one. Surtsicna (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't help but point out the numerous factual inaccuracies in your arguments. Romanian is NOT necessary, because Transylvania never EVER belonged to Romania until 1920, meaning that she didn't rule any Romanian state. The same applies for Serbia too, because the lands she ruled became part of Serbia MUCH later. For the rest of the countries you have to look at the countries where she was the de facto ruler, and those included (surprise, surprise) Bohemia AND Hungary (and part of Poland too). And I know as a matter of fact that her rule DID play a VERY important role in Hungarian and just as important role in the Czech history (she even had a statue because of this in Bratislava until the Slovaks destroyed it in 1920, and another one in Prague too). Hence I'd definitely leave in the Czech and Hungarian name and maybe include even Polish and Croatian too, since she definitely ruled those countries too. But that's about it, so no, I'm NOT suggesting the inclusion of completely irrelevant translations of her name, only the relevant ones (and yes, the above mentioned ones ARE relevant). -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Romania did not exist during Maria Theresa's lifetime; Transylvania naturally did not belong to a country that did not exist. It doesn't mean that the language known today as Romanian did not exist or that her Transylvanian subjects did not speak that language. The same applies to Serbia (just for the record, the lands she ruled were part of Serbia much before Maria Theresa's birth and became part of it again much after her death). Those two aside, Maria Theresa was, of course, de facto ruler of the Austrian Netherlands (where her subjects spoke French, Waloon and Dutch) and Milan, Parma and Piacenza (where her subjects spoke Italian). She definitely ruled all these lands so why leave out modern French, Waloon, Dutch and Italian versions? What makes modern Hungarian and Czech versions relevant and all the others irrelevant? Surtsicna (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I should add Slovenian and Slovak to the list. Maria Theresa did, of course, rule people who spoke those languages as Queen of Hungary and Duchess of Carinthia and Carniola. From 1775, she was a ruler of Bukovina, so one might argue in favour of adding her name in Ukrainian too. I hope you see where this is going. Surtsicna (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I see your point, we're not making a wiki-translate article, that's why I added only those languages where she was the ruler: Austria, Czech and Hungary. That's why I disagree with you, I don't want to spam (with all the 3000 languages) the first lines of the article, only this three. Csendesmark (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
She was the ruler of countries in which people spoke all of the mentioned languages. She was the ruler of the Netherlands, large part of Italy, large part of Poland, etc. I am not sure why you keep ignoring that. Surtsicna (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Look, I have a feeling that you're trying to twist my point around, so let me make this clear: I think that Hungarian and Czech should be included in the listing because her role in Hungary's or Bohemia's history was just as important as that of Austria. I have doubts about the rest, either because she didn't rule the whole of those lands (in case of Italy or Poland) or her role wasn't that important there. Besides, you seem to be quite knowledgeable of Maria Theresa's biography, so you probably also know that politics-wise she considered Hungary just as important as Austria or else she wouldn't have run to Hungarian noblemen for sympathy and wouldn't have made laws that introduced reforms specifically in Hungary too. So mixing in countries where she didn't rule much is bad science (at best), especially since she really DID concentrate her efforts to Austria, Bohemia AND Hungary (and probably Poland too, but I don't know the Polish history that well, so I can't tell for sure). Hence I think that at least the Czech and Hungarian alternate names should stay. -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry if you have an impression that I am trying to twist your point. I am not; I completely understand it, but it is flawed. Giving preference to one or two countries is pushing a POV, something which Wikipedia should not do. She did rule the entire Duchy of Parma and the entire Duchy of Milan, for example, so to include the Hungarian and exclude the Italian version of her name would be rather Hungarocentric. I am not trying to undermine her role in Hungarian history - that would be ridiculous! However, it is just as wrong to undermine Maria Theresa's role in her other countries. She did, for example, make a big fuss about the Duchy of Silesia - triggering a long war that marked her reign - so we'd have to include the Polish version of her name.
Her role in the history of Austria is not more important than her role in Hungarian or Czech history and the German name is not there to emphasise that she was an Austrian ruler. It is there because 1) German was her native language (not Hungarian, Czech, or any other), 2) because she referred to herself as Maria Theresia (not as Mária Terézia, Marie Terezie or anything other than possibly Marie-Thérèse, as French was the lingua franca of the time) and 3) because some English language sources refer to her as Maria Theresia while the number of English language sources that call her Mária Terézia, Marie Terezie or by any other name is, to say the least, insignificant. Surtsicna (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Like I said earlier my point is NOT to give preference only to Hungary and Bohemia (far from that), but to allow for some plurality. I've concentrated on Hungary in my examples because its history I know the best (or definitely better than e.g. the history of Italy, especially before the unification), but I'm absolutely fine with adding MT's name in Polish and Italian too besides the Hungarian and Czech. And I'm not saying that English sources might refer to her by the Czech or Hungarian version of her name. I'm just saying that the alternate names should be included e.g. for historical reasons (e.g. the Czech, Hungarian, Italian and Polish version because she DID rule those lands). -- CoolKoon (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
What historical reasons? It would actually be anachronistic to include them and I have explained why. She DID rule Croatian, Romanian, French, Dutch, Slovene, Slovak, Serbian and even Ukrainian speaking lands as well. For example, she ruled all Slovak, Slovene or Croatian speaking people. Anyway, I have explained why the German form is there - it was her native language, she herself used that form and it is useful because a reader can come across it while reading about her in English. Surtsicna (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that Surtsicna has a valid argument. The absence of the Hungarian and Czech versions of her name does not imply anything about her significance to the Hungarian or Czech history. Most English sources use "Maria Theresa", but the German version "Maria Theresia" should also be mentioned, since that was her native name. All other name variants are less relevant and can be omitted, especially, since they are very similar to her original German name. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, she conducted her daily life speaking French and her correspondence writing and reading French. So how is German really relevant? ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC) [citation needed]
The German variant is likely to be encountered when reading about her. English language sources do not refer to her as Marie-Thérèse, but do sometimes call her Maria Theresia. Surtsicna (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Maria Theresa's imperial status and the name of the treaty

No emperor who reigned after Charles V was crowned as such, yet each of them was undisputably an emperor. An emperor-elect, surely, but nontheless a legitimate and undisputed emperor. Their wives, naturally, were empresses. Maria Theresa was an empress. She was always referred to and styled as such. Even her greatest enemy referred to her as such, so we don't need someone in the 21st century trying to argue that she was not.

The Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle is always called Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. Aix-la-Chapelle was the contemporary name for the city, and it stuck in the name of the treaty. Stop pushing your POV, 188.96.192.14. It is extremely disruptive. On a side note, your racist remarks are disgusting. Surtsicna (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Titles

In the titulature of Habsburg rulers the title King/Queen of Hungary is always before the title King/Queen of Bohemia. This is a common and annoying error (or a conscious falsification of history) on Wikipedia. Bohemia was only a wassal kingdom of Holy Roman Empire, while Hungary was all the time an independent legal body of Habsburg countries, and one of the leading European powers before 1526. Similarly, kingdom of Croatia etc was only a legal body under Hungarian crown, not an independent state. Titles like king of Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia, Cumania, Galicia, Lodomeria, Jerusalem, Bosnia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Rama, Ruthenia, duke of Transylvania, etc denote only the wassal states of the Hungarian crown, inherited by Habsburgs after 1526, by ascending the Hungarian throne. --Szegedi László (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

My understanding was that Maria Theresa was technically the "king" of Hungary not its "queen." Shouldn't the page reflect this? 71.226.42.108 (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Bias regarding Jews and Protestants

There is/was a lot of bias language in regards to Maria Theresa's opposition to Judaism and Protestantism. It uses emotive POV value judgements like "extremely harsh" and "traditional prejudices", which do not belong here. To claim that she should have tolerated them is bias against the Catholic position and pro-revolutionary/freemasonry. The facts of her supression of the aforementioned groups in her lands can be presented in a simple neutral manner of presenting facts, without dressing it up as it she was wrong to hold the position she did. - 2.121.227.101 (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, Wikipedia should take no sides but replacing "anti-Semitic" with "opponent to Judaism" and "Judeophobia" with "opposition to Judaism" is simply ridiculous. It is as silly as would be replacing "racist" with "intolerant to other races". Furthermore, everything in the article is well-sourced, including the facts you wish to remove, and you shouldn't add Joseph's link to freemasonry in the middle of a sentence unless you can explain how that link is related to his disagreement with Maria Theresa's views and add a source for the claim. Surtsicna (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The concept of "anti-semitism" wasn't invented until long after Maria Theresa died. It was coined almost a hundred years after her death, thus is an anachronism. Darwinian scientific concepts from which "anti-semitism" came (generally predominating in Protestant countries) have little if anything to do with Catholic anti-Jewishness, which is based on opposition to the religion of Judaism and the supposed "morality" which comes from it (the same is with her anti-Protestantism).
This as well as "Judeophobia", are politically charged buzzwords, which can better be explained in neutral abstractions. Regarding Joseph II and freemasonry. The organisation of freemasonry to which he was allied supported religious indifferentism, which Catholicism didn't. His political views are important to any such consideration of why he supported appeasing those groups, while his mother generally did not. - 2.121.227.101 (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
It is perfectly normal to use terms which did not exist during the subject's lifetime because, though the word itself may not have existed, what it stands for certainly existed. Should the article about Alfred the Great avoid using words derived from French because they were not used during his lifetime? Should we avoid using the word "Balkan" when discussing prehistoric humans because the word "Balkan" was not used until long after cavemen died or avoid describing Alexander the Great as bisexual simply because the word did not exist at that time? How about we use the 18th century English spelling in articles about 18th century people? There is nothing anachronistic or wrong with using the term "anti-Semitic" to name what you call "opposition to Judaism".
What I cannot understand is how all the historians this article cites, along with three or more editors (I cannot recall exactly, I apologise if I forgot somebody's input), failed to notice that the wording they used or read was politically charged.
As for Joseph's freemasonry, I do not dispute it; just cite a reliable source that directly confirms your claim. Otherwise it appears that Mahan and Holborn support your claim when they do not. Surtsicna (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
RE: 'To claim that she should have tolerated them is bias against the Catholic position and pro-revolutionary/freemasonry.' An "amazing" point of view and comment! The comment's author could equally state that noting the Ku Klux Klan 's racism is bias against the "Klan", that Hitler's genocide is bias against Hitler, etc. Emesz (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC) 8:55, 4 February 2014

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maria Theresa. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

  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/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maria_Theresa/Archive_1&oldid=1073884367"