text:
Talk:Almanach de Gotha

Website
"In mid-2006 the website for the London publication (www.almanachdegotha.com) ceased to function." However, the site www.almanachdegotha.org is functional. -- megA (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

 * That web site (www.almanachdegotha.org) is a fake. It is (or was) run by a one Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland (also a fake).  I think that there is a real prince with a similar name as this, but they are both two different persons (one real and one fake).  This same fellow runs several other fake web sites also.  Among these are:
 * The Imperial College of Princes and Counts
 * The International Commission for Royal Orders of Chivalry
 * Imperial College of Heraldry
 * The Almanach de Holy Roman Empire
 * The Order of The Teutonic Knights of St. Mary's Hospital in Jerusalem
 * These web sites look quite good and may actually contain much real and interesting information, but they are fundamentally fake and run by a fake person (someone pretending to be someone else). There may even be more web sites than these listed above, but some of these were essentially duplicates of the others. The web URLs or titles of these web sites also occasionally change. I don't really know where this person resides but it might be in the UK.  Two London papers had some information on this person several years ago. --L.Smithfield (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Looked at your comments, so do you have actual official evidence that he is a fake and that this website is run by the aforementioned person in question or is it hearsay on your part quite tired of people making semi official statements without actual evidence, being produced at the time of the statement being made, whereas, producing official evidence would not be just showing or producing further hearsay and comments by others unless they are made by an official body or person ie government or likewise, to many so called experts who do not hold, bear or enjoy any sort of official standing, make sweeping statements about the rights or standings of others without showing evidence to their comments, just a thought for all.

 * Questions about | Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland (fake prinz extraordinaire) seem to come up every year or so. Another fake site that is either run by or affiliated with the good prinz is:
 * The List of International Royal, Nobility, and Orders of Chivalry
 * This fake site conveniently lists the good prinz as being one of the claimants to the extinct imperial throne of the Holy Roman Empire. This is one of the reasons that we know that this site is a fake (the HRE being dissolved in 1806 by Emperor Francis II).  Other fake web sites that are duplicates of the ones above but under different web domains are:
 * http://www.almanachdechivalry.org/
 * http://www.imperialcollegeofheraldry.org/
 * http://www.almanachdeholyromanempire.com/
 * http://www.imperialteutonicorder.org/
 * The good prinz has done a lot of work in order to create all of these web sites. He has a real talent for this sort of thing. --L.Smithfield (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

 * The information you have listed above is just a repeat of the information you have listed before, you have not shown any official proof of this person being a fake, just repeating your own hearsay and others, you have not verified that the aforesaid sites are owned by this person, nor have you verified who in fact he is, therefore I will only accept actual official proof not cut and paste scripts from discussion group web boards, which are about as official and accurate as not, always take these boards with a pinch of salt, the same sort of boards defame Her Majesty The Queen and others like her, no real historian would ever take part in these sort of web boards or discussions, so they can be discounted straight away, then all your doing is repeating the websites as listed beforehand which does not show proof in its self, but quit the contrary showing your own lack of proof using the same websites time and time again! like a recorded player, very boring, have you any government, police, or official records to proof any of your theories or suppositions, just some extra thoughts to your own agenda whatever that maybe! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.144.92 (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

“Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland”
is not listed in any reference works like Alamanch de Gotha or Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels. Like L.Smithfield says he has certainly has a real talent for these websites. And too much time on his hands.... - dwc lr (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Being listed or not in the aforementioned books in its self does not mean the person in question is a fake, as the Almanach de Gotha was out of print, from 1944 until 1999 when it was re-printed under a private initiative, being then printed again by Mr Kennedy, who was last seen on a boat to Montenegro with HRH Crown Prince Nicholas, then it became out of print again in 2004 and is now possibly defunct again since 2006, the trouble with Almanach de Gotha, is that it was famous for not including many legitimate persons of noble birth, on the basis that it could, so this book was not always reliable with its given reference, Emperor Napoleon and his family were denied listing for many years, as well as King Zog I of Albania and various other persons of Rank and Title, were not included, so we can therefore discount that option, whereas concerning the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels which was set up in 1951 to try and be the successor to the Almanach de Gotha, has made many reference mistakes in the past, whereas a lot of royal records and archives were burnt in the various bombing raids during the second world war and other documents burnt or stolen by the Red Army, so complete reference can not be totally verified always, but being listed in this book would of course hold same verification of holding, bearing and enjoying such noble rank bearing in mind this book like the other is still an unofficial book holding no formal connections to the german government or authorities therein, I would be most interested to know, how, why, and on what stand point the aforesaid karl has made his claim, not just seeing people rubbish someone for their own given agenda without any official, statement made by the authorities in germany, or anywhere else, it is nice that mr smithfield has friends to counter any questions or requests made by others, but both Mr Smithfield and DWC IR, have not verified any official proofs of statments by the German Government or Authorities or in fact any other official bodies therein, the aforesaid Karl may hold or not hold rights, but it is for you to show proofs to verify and confirm your own given accusations, about the aforementioned person, you seem to have run out of proofs. more thoughts for reading about this so called talk page having a discussion on a subject, that is not about the page in question a bit silly Mr Smithfield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.94.40 (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had this page on my watchlist for a couple of years now
(I forget why :P), and this isn't the first time the subject of Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland has been raised. As someone who doesn't know a great deal about how this nobility stuff works, I'd be interested to know (from both sides) about his title and its legal standing in Germany and elsewhere, as well as if he is who he says he is, and/or who the person he says he is actually is? If there is any doubt about the reliability of this person, then we should be making doubly sure before including any links etc...  Mi re ma re   14:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe
someone who thinks that this Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland is for real should start a biographical article on him right here on Wikipedia. Let a greater audience evaluate the claim of this so-called prince of Germany. I know that this person is a fake through and through so any article that I would write on this person would say so right up front. This person is totally fake and everyone in the real world knows it. Pretending that this person is for real is like pretending that Mickey Mouse is the recently lost king of Germany. Everyone knows the history of both Germany and the Holy Roman Empire and this fake person is simply not a part of it! But maybe someone who does think that this person is for real should write a Wiki article on him. Then a larger audience can all have a good laugh at this fraud character rather than just the few of us who are writing on this talk-page. --L.Smithfield (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

 * A man that makes some sense at last, I agree with Miremore adding links based on supposition and accusations, through adding links and listing web boards, is as baseless as claiming rights to which one does not hold, bear or enjoy, therefore it is for Mr Smithfield as the one that has made these suppositions, to legally show official statements of facts based upon judgments of the governments and authorities of the Countries concerned before holding, bearing or enjoying any sort of solid legal argument based upon the aforementioned accusations declared by Mr Smithfield thereon, namely that Karl is impersonating a person that actual exists in Germany today, please tell us all! namely the full name and title of the person that you think Karl is impersonating, whereas, i would totally disagree on your given assumption that the whole world thinks he's a fake, the world has not heard of him like most members of the would be or could titled nobility, most people are not interested who they are or what they do, this is not the 19th century Mr smithfield, there you go again making vast personal assumptions where by your including the whole world on the side of your own given views and accusations you are one person not the whole world, and i would further disagree with your view that everyone knows history of Germany and the First Reich, quite the contrary most germans know very little about their German history especially their Imperial and Noble History and past and most don't care!, the rest of the world knows very little, apart from those who search Wikipedia for information, concerning the subject of the First Reich, there are very few books written on its near on 1000 year history, far more were written on the subjects of the second and third Reichs, so your personal assumption on this matter is flawed, im not interested in writing the piece of karl, or any other would be or could claimant to some defunct body, much more interested in writing a piece on Stalin or Lenin, but you seem to have a real problem with him why! i decided to write reply's to your accusations as you have listed the same links and comments on quite a few pages, i just dislike bullies who use and abuse this wonderful website to attack others for no better reason than it makes them feel good, wikipedia which is a champion of information on the net, is worth much more than that, personal attacks and accusations should be left for private websites and web boards were bullying has become an art form, leave Wikipedia alone this is a site for all based on true and factual information for everyone!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.100.76 (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize.
I did not mean to suggest that this Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland is impersonating someone else, as if someone by that name already existed. Rather I did mean to state that this person is pretending to be something that he is not. Whoever this person is, he is not a real lost prince of either Germany or the HRE. He just made up a completely fake name for himself. He has no past. He has no imperial, royal, or even noble parents. He has no biography anywhere on the web. This person is simply a complete fake. He is pretending to be something that he is not. He pretends to be the heir to the imperial throne of the HRE. This pretension on his part is just pure fantasy. Anyone can just make up a name and pretend to be the heir to some former kingdom, but that doesn't mean that the person is actually what he claims. He is just pretending to be the heir to the former imperial throne of the HRE. This person exists nowhere on the web except for within his own fantasy web sites. Making up some fake fantasy web sites is not enough to establish that a person is the heir to a former throne of Europe. Show me a real biography of this fake person (other than from one of his own fake web sites) and then I will acknowledge that this fake person exists. --L.Smithfield (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I accept your mistake, but concerning, the status and title of this person, it is for you to show, list and substantiate, your own accusations against this person, through due legal factual statement, whereas you are the one that has taken it upon yourself to attack Karl through your own given statements and it is not for me or any other person, to substantiate by writing, showing or listing anything as i have not accused any person of being a fake, the trouble with the net is that people take it upon themselves by hiding behind a computer screen to make personal attacks upon persons who maybe right or wrong, without any legal or official rights to do so, normally with out proof, this person Karl has the right to defend himself but i doubt he will, you should not use Wikipedia for this sort of thing, it is here for factual information only, and was not set up to attack people in this why, you try to justify your statement by listing only internet proofs but then attack him for having websites, both of these are from the same brush in my opinion, this does not justify your accusations. Whereas, the succession to the Throne of the First Reich was by election and not by birth right, which is the normal way that the right of succession is ruled and that the empire was never conquered or in fact legally, abolished, therefore in theory of law the empire still exists, whether we like to recognize this fact or not, it is normally said that because Francis II abdicated his throne, an act that had accured before under Charles V and that he allowed the Imperial states to give up their allegiance's to the empire, thus the aforesaid acts meant that the empire no longer exists, this view is totally and legally wrong their is no legal document or documents that exist anywhere in Europe or in fact anywhere else to substantiate this claim made by lots of so called experts on the subject, the truth is that the First Reich still exists in a clear legal dormant state, and further because the Principality of Lichtenstein, still exists and never formally relinquished its allegiances in any form to the empire it might be said correctly in factual law that the first Reich actually exists in a legal de facto state ie in the presence and existence of the Principality of Lichtenstein, which to this day has actually given formal recognitions to a number of dormant titles of the First Reich to petitioners thereon, so there is case that the first Reich does exists in a dormant or de facto state, concerning any claims to the throne a would be candidate would have to be elected by a group Electors as stated under the imperial laws pertaining to the empire, but there are many problems, first in most cases the election rights and offices belonged to the state or office, not the person or house, and the majority of the states and offices no longer exist, so that would be a major obstacle in claiming the Imperial Title of Emperor, but sorry to say there is nothing in law from a man assuming in any Title or office, if no one person will counter claim that assumption, ie HIRH Otto Von Hapsburg, or HIRH George Friedrich of Prussia, so to say someone is a fake because they claim a long dormant or defunct Title or Office, holds no legal judgment, unless they assume a real persons identity thus commenting fraud and fake impersonation ie as you stated by mistake in your posting last but one, in history nothing is cut and dry or black and white, individuals have assumed many such Sovereign titles and offices rightly or wrongly, over the years, this person maybe or may not be another one to add to the list, in the time of the Emperor Napoleon who was the most famous person in history to assume and usurp titles and offices which was not his to assume by law, but of course no one would say he was a fake, the difference was he had a large army to defend his claims, the emperor was not recognized by most of the Imperial and royal Houses of Europe, they looked upon him a little upstart, and even to this day some Imperial and royal houses and families in Europe still do not recognize him and his family, or his titles and claims thereon, and what about King Zog I, or in fact the Shar of Iran, and the house of Pahlavi, both usurpers i could go on but i will not, but they are some of the examples of people who in terms of claims were just common famous usurpers holding no legal right to assume these ranks but they did, through force. Whereas, Royalty and nobility are not borne with blue blood and they do not have any birth rights to any Titles or offices, they assume these ranks and titles, in different ways some legal, some not, but in most cases, through illegal ways by the act of force or by murder, to many individuals like to paint history in an almost dream like state which it is not, sorry, we are all borne equal and die equal, this we can be shaw of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.100.76 (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the best, that we can do, is completely ignore this lunatic "Karl".
He is not notable or interesting. Nobody takes care about him.--Yopie (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

 * It's actually quite simple: The title "Prinz von Deutschland" doesn't exist. There never was a "prince of Germany". It would be "Erzherzog von Österreich" (see Otto von Habsburg) for the HRE claimant, since the HRE emperors took the title of "Emperor of Austria" in 1806, (all Austrian titles have been abolished with Austria becoming a republic, so the Archduke title is invalid) and "Prinz von Preußen" (as in the current throne claimant, Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia) for the Second German Empire, the title being part of the family name by German law. Some other members of the former imperial family have the title "Prinz von Hohenzollern". As for the dissolved First Empire (the HRE), as our unknown friend (who writes from the UK, where those web sites are based - coincidence?) stated himself, the succession was by election, so you can't claim a title that is awarded by election. (However, the imperial title had been in the hands of the Habsburg family since 1415 (with one exception), which brings uns back to the Austrian emperors...)

"Prinz von Deutschland" is a fantasy title; you might try to call yourself "Prince of Switzerland", "Prince of Hamburg" or "Prince of the USA" as well. If you do a google search with "Prinz von Deutschland", you get eight (!) results, none of them indicating an actually existing person. (but one of them a Polish impostor, who, some years ago, crossing the border to Germany, claimed to be on his way to Buckingham palace, and that he needed an appropriate General's uniform from the next barracks...) -- megA (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Found this gem over here: The noble house of Bretzenheim; was restored in April 2007; when, His Imperial & Royal Highness, Fürst Karl Friedrich von Deutschland; head of the Holy Roman Empire in exile, conferred the title; His Excellency, Graf von Bretzenheim, on Lytton Patrick Brown and all his decendents, by Imperial Letters Patent, dated May 25 2007. After evthis date, His Excellency, was registered in the Almanach de Saxe Gotha and made a member of the Reichs Council of Princes & Counts. In November 2007, the other title of the house of Bretzenheim; Graf von Lindau, was added to the Almanach de Saxe Gotha and Lytton now bears the title; Graf von Bretzenheim und Lindau. The house became Princely in 2008, when, His Imperial Highness, elevated Lytton to; His Serene Highness, Fürst von Bretzenheim.
 * Oh, this is fun! Let's start our own empire! I could claim the title of Emperor of India, can't I? It's a "dormant" title as well, isn't it? What about "Emperor of China"? I wonder how much Mr. Brown paid for his title - twice... -- megA (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Firstly to answer Dear MegA, so no one may disagree with your methods, information or attaks upon the subject concerned? the aforementioned sites are listed in the US of A, not the UK, and therefore as far as your concerned because Karl is said to be in the UK, any person out of a possible 65 million people replying to this discussion board from the uk, must then be a supporter or in fact Karl, so on that same assumption any person from Germany replying to a discussion board on Hitler must be in fact a supporter of Hitler or in fact Hitler himself, sounds ridiculous because it is! Now let us discuss your many assumptions which in most cases are baseless in law, concerning the title of Prinz von Deutschland, you are quite right this Title may not have existed before its usage by this person, but have you ever thought this may be the reason he uses it, so he is not connected to the Houses of Hohenzollern or Hapsburg, just a thought, whereas, concerning the elected Title of Holy Roman Emperor, the last house to claim it as a hereditary right was the House of Hohenstaufen, and they were all murdered because of it, so your assumption that the house of Hapsburg has some sort of hereditary right to this Title holds no legal basis in imperial law, and your further assumption that the heir would be an or the Archduke of Austria is a total fallacy, the heir to the reigning emperor would hold the title of King of the Romans or of Germany, which was also an elected title, there were no secondary titles for the family members of the holy roman emperor, except their own family titles thereon, also a further note for you on the wrong assumption that the title of emperor of Austria is the successive title to the title of holy roman emperor this is wrong in law, the holy roman emperor Francis the second, who became Francis the first of Austria in 1804 being a self styled title which he assumed as hereditary having granted it upon himself by himself as holy roman emperor as he could not confer this title upon himself any other way in the laws pertaining and then abdicated the Imperial Title of holy roman emperor in 1806 this meant he held both Imperial titles for nearly two years, and relinquished the title of holy roman emperor, so the title of emperor of Austria was not the successor to the title of holy roman emperor, I just needed to say this as it is a noted fallacy of many historians and people, whereas, i quite understand the laws pertaining to the anti-nobility laws of both the first Austrian republic and the Weimer republic of Germany 1919, like most individuals who have knowledge on the subject in question, but thank you for listing this, also you state that the house of Hapsburg has held this title since 1415, this is again wrong a member of the house first held this title in 1440 by election of this date, becoming Frederick III, who was crowned in 1452, please get your dates right at least, the main reason why the Hapsburg family were able to be elected time after time, was that it had married very well, thus becoming the richest and most landed family in Europe, they come from petty counts from the Alsace region, they just paid all the electors off with gold, land and rights as well as there own electoral votes that they held through the kingdom of Bohemia etc.. secondly, again the imperial title was not hereditary please remember this, because it is written in imperial law!!!!!!!! you are again wrong, if we are being technical as you like to be it seems MegA, two emperors were not Hapsburg, being first Charles VII of the house of wittlesbach reigning from 1742 to 1745, and in fact the emperor Francis I, who was not borne a Hapsburg but born a member of the house of Lorraine! and was only connected to the Habsburgs through his grandmother Eleanore, daughter of Emperor Ferdinand III, and wife of Charles Leopold of Lorraine, his grandfather, and thus assumed the name of Hapsburg-Lorraine !!!oops!!! may i say assumed!! the name which was not his by law or birth, when he married the heir of Charles VI, (last true male Hapsburg, !remember last true male Hapsburg!) being Maria Therese of Austria, therefore we could be even more technical and truthfully state that not 1 not even 2 but five holy roman emperors were not of the house of Hapsburg from the year 1440, one from the house of wittlesbach and 4 from the house of Lorraine. whereas im sorry to say again yes if you wished to, you could claim such a title, there is nothing stopping you in law, a man once declare himself Emperor of the united states, just because you or i think it is silly that does not mean you can not claim it! whereas, concerning listings on the net, there are many aristocratic families who are not even listed on the net, and when they are maybe only a few listings come up normally, being in most cases private family websites, so sorry to dent your knowledge once again the whole world does not exist on the net, this might surprise you, as a finally point who gives a damn about any person assuming, bearing or holding titles of rank, whether real or not they are all fake in my opinion, put here and assumed by certain families to suppress the people and our own freedoms, but I say again all you are doing is repeating yourself and showing no proofs that he has commented anything and i hate bullies who take it upon themselves to attack others so i will also defend those who can not defend themselves from bullies as you have not shown any court judgments to proof or substantiate your supposition and accusations and until you can proof by a legal judgment, your accusations will remain purely supposition. ps by the way both the Imperial titles of emperor of India and emperor of china are not dormant they were legally abolished unlike the holy roman empire there are actual documents declaring this legal fact and furthermore the aforesaid imperial titles belong to the families which held them by hereditary possession!!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.145.44 (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks MegA for both your additional investigation on this Prinz Karl and also for your original question. I did not expect your original question to cause such a stir but neither am I surprised.  This sort of discussion seems to occur at least every year or less.  Thanks are also due to Yopie and dwc lr, and a few others, for their continuing efforts in keeping these fake people and fake web sites from being represented as being real within Wikipedia.  These fake people would like nothing better than to get their fake web sites as links on real Wikipedia articles.  They want to be able to use Wikipedia as support for their fake pretensions and schemes.  Because of the many fake web sites already on the web, oftentimes it is not easy for unsuspecting people to discern what is real and what is fake.  Letting these people put their fake information on Wikipedia would only exaggerate the problem.  Thanks again. --L.Smithfield (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Well mr smithfield, I would hardly say that MegA's support is an official endorsement, when concerning his errors with dates, titles and rights thereon, and of course the INVESTIGATION, which consisted a quick search of the internet, and then the master stroke of placing yet another web link to your already large list, but it is funny for me to have you talk about, " must stop these fake people adding web links to Wikipedia when this is all your in fact doing, highlighting there claims a bit silly dont you think!, whereas, let us not forget the very important statement made by Yopie, 'His a Lunatic' and of course, dwc, ' he is not in my book so he must be fake', what can be said of your supporters, is they all have something in common a real since of being inexpert of their given knowledge, on the subject in hand, therefore i would not start counting your votes for the self assumed and self styled title of chief of the fake title police, just yet for if the only people that you can muster to support your own unsubstantiated accusations, as the ones listed above, then all i can say is that you will not win a case in court! never mind i have enjoyed replying to this ridiculous subject and posting on this message board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.145.44 (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are some articles
[ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/the-holy-roman-emperor-is-alive-and-well-and-living-in-teddington-743014.html]. The “Emperor’s” mother says they are “completely sane”, well if you say so do dear!!. - dwc lr (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Hi dwc thanks for your input, another web link to add to the large and growing list, created by mr smithfield, you were the one left out I suppose, but at least you have been bothered to actually show something of interest to all, unlike the others listed here, so congratulations on this, but as these newspaper articles has been on the web since at least the year 2000 nearly a decade ago, it is not a new finding by any means and of course whether we all think it is a funny article or not, it does of course make a valid point that this person has claimed a legally dormant title as shown and for what we can see he has not impersonated any living or dead person, or in fact assumed an existing title held by any Imperial or royal house, so a funny story that actually supports his unusual claim and he actually exists as far as the article states so he is nether a fake or a fraud, so on this account he has not commented fraud by the act of impersonation and further no court papers or proceedings have been lodged, up to this point as far as we know, so unless you can show official court proceedings, to add to this discussion board, instead of adding old stories and web links, which do not warrant being called official proof and by the way the independent newspaper and the guardian are probably the most anti monarchist papers in the uk a good point to note, so any write ups can be taken with a pinch of salt, these papers have always rubbished British aristocratic's and the royal family, what we can also say is he has claimed a title, to which you and others do not recognize which of course is your right to do, but just calling him names does not hold truth by legal statement, we should also note there is a growing republican movement in Britain thank goodness, with at least a few million people not recognizing the queens right to rule but of course we would not say she was not the queen would we, so formal recognition is not 9 tenths of the law! so take my advise if you think he is a fake and a fraud just simply post an actual legal court judgment that has been lodged by an official authority or government body, concerning his claim and let us all see the proof, if you carry on like others and keep adding to the list of links you are showing a totally lack of proof with an inexpert source of knowledge and information therein! whereas, karl must think he is very important, that you all make such an issue and fuss out of his claim of 1999, quite funny i think !!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.128.42 (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Interesting article. You "don't sell" titles, you "give them away for a gift". Does this guy know that the electoral college consisted of different people than him and his mother? And the title "King of Germany/Rome" was given to the elected and crowned, well, King of Germany. The Emperordom was given by the Pope, not the electoral college. He should also make up his mid if he wants to be Prince of Germany or of the Holy Roman Empire. There's a difference. Nevertheless, this adresses my initial question. The almanachdegotha website exists for the purpose of legitimating this person's claim to a nonexistent title for an (of course!) officially abolished Empire (with the abdication of Emperor Francis), as well as his title- selling giving-away-for-gifts enterprise. I ask him to include my own title as His Imperial and Caesarian Highness, Augustus and Prince of the Roman Empire, East AND West. There, now who's got the bigger one?! And don't you dare to throw laws into my face! In my empire, I MAKE the laws! Well, you know the procedure yourself, of course. -- megA (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Oh dear... is it really him in that article? A bloke from south London who's decided that he's Holy Roman Emperor because nobody else is? How disappointing... :(  Mi re ma re   21:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please miremare, man of reason, the only one on here, i may add,
just blame our two inexpert friends, for your stated disappointment, who first started this quite ridiculous discussion board, being MegA and mr smithfield, who both seem to have a real problem with this character karl, mr smithfeild in particular who has put more of the aforementioned links on Wikipedia in the discussion pages than anyone else it seems, hardly the why you would ignore a so called lunatic, (sorry borrowed your word yopie).

 * from the "Almanach de Holy Roman Empire" site: The Seat of the Imperial Order is in London, at the residence of H.I.&.R.H. Prince Karl Friedrich von Deutschland, de jure Emperor Charles VIII of Germany, Hereditary Sovereign Chancellor and Grand Master of the Imperial Order. Not only claimant, he IS the emperor of Germany (not the HRE, mind you!). I think someone should tell Horst Köhler, Mrs. Merkel and the German Federal Diet that the German constitution has been abolished by a (then) 25-year-old and his mother! (By the way, he is also "Hochmiester" (sic!) of the Teutonic Order, reinstalled by decree of (guess who)... the Holy Roman Emperor...) -- megA (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

 * MegA your response is so predictably it is quite ridiculous and you talk about this chap having a problem, one has already flown over the cuckoo's nest namely yourself, getting all your information mix up, and as usually most of it wrong in your case, so how does it feel to, still not understand the basic principals and law of the holy roman empire, concerning the abdication of frances II and just about everything else besides!, being proved wrong on nearly every point, and yes the Hapsburg emperor Frederick III was elected in 1415 right!!!!!!! no he was born in 1415 and elected in 1440, silly boy!!!!!! and the title of emperor of Austria was successor to the title of holy roman emperor, right!!!!!!! no once again wrong, but your errors are to many to add on here, but wait we have new words to add to your list, like emperordom!!!! someone has been playing to many computer games me thinks! some advise for you MegA I would go back to school and read lots of books on the subject of history and then learn the basic understanding of the English language, because it does not seem to be your first language, does it, talking about the emperors mother, does your mother know that you are up and awake, after 9pm, talking to strangers on the net!!!! go on tell us all some more inexpert sources of knowledge and information you are so good at it!! and thank you MegA for the information and history of the title of holy roman emperor, which was given by the Pope, i never knew this wow!!!! you are a very clever boy, and i like your further listed information which you added and of course it is wrong again naughty naughty!!! on the title of King of Rome this was never used by holy roman emperors or their heirs, this is wrong because this title has only every been used 8 times, 7 times by the ancient kings of Rome and once by emperor Napoleon, for his son and heir being known as the king of Rome, to of course mirror the correct title which was used by the holy roman emperor for his heir which was the King of the Romans, there is a big difference in the term and usage of the aforementioned, Title and style, MegA, silly boy!!! and furthermore i stated that the aforementioned title was elected, so i now can assume you do not even understand the question to answer principle do you!!!! go on tell us more about your ongoing so called INVESTIGATION on karl, what a internet searching expert you are!!, what other information have you found out, wait every body he's going to say something clever!!! oops what about something official i will say it again official do you understand the word or in fact the meaning my small friend, please show us all first proof that this website as named by yourself is owned and run by karl, that would be a start, then you can add an actual legal court judgment that has been lodged by an official authority or government body, concerning his claim, there we go a task for a very important boy your mother will be very pleased indeed! night night x  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.128.42 (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tsk, tsk. Ad hominems instead of argumentation. A more "noble" demeanor would suit Your Highness well, Charlie. But it's a lost art. Oh well, as Pratchett wrote: "Multiple exclamation marks - a sure sign of a diseased mind." Ta-ta,HIH, megA, Galactic Imperator (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Well MegA your mind has gone again wondering through the depths of ridiculous accusations, hinted only by notes of nothingness, whilst quoting irrelevant authors of fantasy novels, which I suppose is quite relevant in your case being a man of little words and substance with a true lack of reality based upon your mind which holds little signs of notable existence, whereas, let us not forget an ability to make up words that do not exist in the English language, it should be also noted that those who include Latin words within the spectrum of their English written verse show to all that they hold little understanding of either, whereas I still see you have not been able to answer any questions or show official proofs, never mind its become a tradition of yours anyway and further I see your still signing yourself as 'HIH MegA Galactic Imperator' one of your many fake titles which you have assumed, some more advise, when man runs out of proof he uses Latin quotes and authors in order to substantiate his own lack of proof or in fact his own relevance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.22.5 (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Final question: Should we not better move this whole crap about “Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland” (in this and the previous sections) to the archive so that no readers get confused by this nonsense anymore? -- Equord (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair and balanced?
Here's something I've been wondering for a while: this page seems to contain more criticism towards mediatized German houses than actually explain what the Gotha was all about. There is not even a mention of the statistic part of the Almanach (more than half of its pages and ever increasing), which worked as a sort of "International Blue Book", was widely used and generally respected for its accuracy and wealth of information. While criticism should have its place on this page, one gets almost the impression that Justus Perthes cooked up a German conspiracy to promote families to higher status, rather than, say, the Congress of Vienna and the Federal Diet.

Also there seems to be a number of errors and/or misleading statements. For example: "The Gotha's condescending attitude towards Eastern European nobility and royalty, and towards Iberian, Spanish, British, Italian, and Scandinavian highest nobility, led to the proliferation of German mediatized princesses in the royal houses of Europe, as their value in the marriage market had been artificially enhanced by this work's rankings. Another consequence was the yet ongoing Romanov succession dispute, as Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, a claimant to the headship of the Russian Imperial Family,[6] has a Romanov father and Bagrationi mother, a morganaut according to the Gotha standards; the entire Russian male dynastic descent went extinct when applying its standards."

1) Before WWI, none too many marriages between mediatized houses and royal families seem to have occurred; none in Britain, none in France (although a Princesse d'Orléans married a Prince Czartoryski of the family long in Gotha); one in the Netherlands (Princess Marie married the Prince of Wied); none in Belgium (unless we deem the Princes of Hohenzollern being mediatized after they ceded their sovereignty to Prussia in 1849). Perhaps the writer confuses the sovereign German houses (Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Waldeck and Pyrmont, Anhalt, Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt etc.) with mediatized? The sovereign families married to the royal families of many greater powers, but sovereignty is equal to countries both great and small. Indeed, such families as Schaumburg-Lippe, Reuss, Liechtenstein and Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen appear to have found much finer spouses after 1815 than they did in the two centuries before, while the Thurn und Taxis and Isenburg families seem to have lost some of their earlier allure. -- But I find no evidence of "proliferation" of mediatized houses.

2) Norfolk (mentioned in the article) entered the Gotha in 1876, the same year the comital houses were upgraded; thus -- "For over a century, the second section consisted of non-sovereign princely houses from all over Europe (save many easternmost areas). Rohans, Leiningens, Ruspolis, Windisch-Graetzes, Norfolks, Lobkowiczes, Thurn and Taxises and Czartoryskis appeared together." -- is misguiding. The Thurn und Taxis was included in the Gotha from the start (before there were any section II), so were the Lobkowicz, the Leiningen entered in the 1790s, the Czartoryski during the first decade of the 1800s, the Windisch-Graetz and the Rohan in the 1810s, the Ruspoli in late 1820s. The second section was introduced in the early years of the 19th century, and families outside the traditional HRE started entering the Gotha only in the 1870s, when a preface stated that the Almanach strove to be more intenational in its scope. After that time the number of Spanish, British, French and Italian houses increased steadily (as long as they sent in the information). -- The sad fact that Scandinavian monarchs seem to have created few to none princely, let alone ducal houses is hardly condescension towards Swedish or Danish nobility (counts at best).

3) I don't think the editors of Gotha set the standards on the Russian succession dispute; surely that is a matter of the Romanov house law. The Almanachs from the 1920s and 1930s seem to contain a hint of desperation with the Russians when trying to get all the titles correctly, but I doubt whether they (the editors) decided who were morganauts and who weren't. As to the house of Bagrationi, no one questions its high status and antiquity, but a few points should be made here: whether Transcaucasian states are in Europe or not, is a matter of some dispute; secondly, while Gotha listed in section one those houses who had lost their thrones after the beginning of the 19th century, they must have meant "after the Congress of Vienna," because, if the thought is followed to its logical conclusion, most of the mediatized princely houses of Germany would have entered section I (indeed, the principalities of Isenburg and Leyen were mediatized as late as 1815); thirdly, after the annexation of Georgia the Russian Emperors treated the Bagrationi as Russian princes and not as sovereigns. Moreover, the Bagrationi never sent their information to the Gotha.

Quote: "This division was considered of great social significance in the Holy Roman Empire and its successor states; nobles from the second section were considered legally equal to German royals appearing in the first section (at least with those royals whose houses actually were ducal or less before the Napoleonic period; of the truly older kingdoms, Prussia declined to recognize a countess Harrach, mediatized, from section two, to marry its king in better than morganatic terms)"

4) Only Prussia and Austria were higher than ducal before Napoleonic times. The Electors were of course of a royal rank, but their family members were usually dukes (or counts palatine).

5) King Friedrich Wilhelm III of Prussia was very rash in marrying Countess Auguste of Harrach before her family was included in the Gotha! (The first mediatized counts were included 1824, but not Harrach.) I'm joking, but once again, the Gotha didn't invent mediatization, which was a complicated affair anyway and should perhaps be linked as "See also:" The main reason for the second upgrade of the counts was probably due to the fact that few were remaining, as many of them had been promoted to princely rank before 1890, and the editors also liked to show the family connections of the different branches (such as the Leiningen, the Fugger and the Solms, having both princely and comital mediatized branches).

To sum up, these particular criticisms aside, I'd like this article to be more descriptive of the Gotha (including the Annuaire diplomatique-statistique) and less of a condemnation of mediatization and ultimately, of Gotha being a book made by Germans in Germany -- there seems to be an underlying anti-Teutonic tone in the article (oh, I'm not German).

And as an aside to the raging discussion, I'm surprised that no one's noted that this so-called "Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland" has pinched the contents of his genealogical pages from Paul Theroff's Online Gotha (a very good source for presents goings-on in princely houses, mediatized or not). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.166.7.128 (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Thank god! for actual discussion content being talked about on this discussion board at last, which holds connection to the page in question, I would agree with everything you say about the quite anti-Gotha and anti-German content within the topic page of the Gotha, but would disagree about your assumption of the identity of the owner of the site in question as up to now no one has actually proofed who is the site owner, so i would keep an open mind on this question, just because websites look the same does not proof anything, as people do use the same site templates, only data on ownership may verify this question any thing else is just hearsay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.14.75 (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Ah well--only one comment to my suggestions as yet. I'm sorry: I should have said "whoever maintains those pages" has pinched the contents ... from Paul Theroff's Online Gotha rather than "Prinz" etc. I'm not quite sure what you meant by "data on ownership". I do not mean to be rude, but (ahem) less convoluted sentences might help the reader to understand what refers to what. Paul Theroff's website has been around for more than a decade, and I should be very surprised indeed to hear of him having anything to do with the "almanach" sites. Not that there exists such a thing as "ownership" or "copyright" of basic genealogical data (dates of birth etc.), and Mr Theroff's sources include l'Allemagne dynastique, GHdA, Gotha ancient and modern, various local annuals etc. (And a few corrections suggested by me, included after verification from other sources). As to almanachdegotha.org, it also makes free use of Wikipedia information on nobility in various countries (including the faulty spelling of "source material"). I'm also doubtful as to the legal use of images on almanachdegotha.org, but I think I've said enough already. -- However, I would very much like to see my "fair and balanced?" suggestions addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.166.1.203 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, it's a bit late, but I think your criticism makes a lot of sense. If you have the knowledge and ability to rewrite, you should take a gander at. john k (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I have read the disputed section and the discussion above, and decided to remove the section altogether. -Arne Saknussemm jr (talk) 08:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

wrong infos about Almanach de Gotha - site http://www.boydellandbrewer.com (see Article)
About the Almanach de Gotha on the linked site (see Article) http://www.boydellandbrewer.com/store/viewitem.asp?idproduct=13798 I read these words: "the only publication to list all the members of ALL the imperial, royal, princely and ducal houses and the counts of the Holy Roman Empire" (!!!): but isn't true because the Almanach is NOT complete: there aren't a lot (around 300+, or more) of royal, imperial, princely, or ducal families, still living, in the peerages of Russia, Italy, U.A.E., India, Thailand, Japan, China, Nigeria, ........... that aren't listed on this publications ! Please remember that this info on the Boydell and Brewer's site about Almanach de Gotha isn't correct (and very far complete) --A curious reader (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC).

Almanach de Gotha
After God knows how many years, I have given up editing the above page and taken it off my watchlist. It is impossible to keep it NPOV, non-advertising and accurate because it's repeatedly edited by warring single purpose accounts.  Giano  08:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * exactly  Giano  : unfortunately, on WP, those few who have an expertise about these subjects was also banned here, and other pages about these subject was illogically altered: this for your choice or that of choice of "your friends", that was totally undocumented on these matters (citations need, do you remember ?!). Now It's too late to complain. A simply tired genealogist  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.166.183.147 (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Was or Is
I do agree with the points made by HofKal2 in their edit summary and don’t see that there edits are unreasonable, this article should state “is” and imo it gives a fair overview of the history of the title, yes up to the present. Lots of things change hands over the years, the rights to the Burke’s Peerage titles for example have also changed hands various times it’s not been the same publisher/publishing company who has produced this series of books from day 1, it’s legally a continuation under a new publisher, this article clearly distinguishes the change of ownership. I don’t see what the problem is. - dwc lr (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

 * The attempt to have this article show the post-1997 "Almanach de Gotha" as an editorial extension of the original Gotha has been controversial for years, as reflected here and here. Although efforts have been made since 2012 to conflate the original with the recent Gotha, despite the gap of of 54 years, those efforts encounter resistance for good reason. Justus Perthes' Almanach de Gotha, published 1785-1944, is notable, and as such has this article in English Wikipedia, only because it is *the* historical authority on ruling and ducal dynasties, and was relied upon as such by the diplomatic corps until 1944. The version that came out half-a-century later has not earned and does not have the reputation for reliability or accuracy of the original. Our article on that series should not be used to promote the post-1997 "Almanach de Gotha", which controversially obtained the legal right to the name of the publication, even though its actual archives are preserved today for public access in and by the city of Gotha itself. Of course the post-1997 "Almanach de Gotha", one of the hundreds of recent royal genealogical works, wants to piggy-back on the original to promote itself in English Wikipedia, especially now that it is, after years of non-publication, putting out a 2019 edition. But Perthes has disclaimed any editorial continuity between its pre-1945 publication and the post-1997 editions. That fact, instead of being buried in text in the article, should make it clear that the recent version lacks the notability of the original. We should not allow this article to be used as an advert for a non-notable publication. FactStraight (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately FactStraight is a user who takes the view that anything historical must have been without error, rather than realising that the historical publications of the Almanach de Gotha were littered with errors. The English language AdeG has on occassion had errors, but these are generally corrected, and the vast majority of readers (including an illustrious comité de patronage) agree with this. It doesn't really matter is Perthes has disclaimed editorial continuity, firstly, they sold the rights, so that doesn't make any sense other than to sound petulant, and secondly, the reality is that it is a continuation of the same publication and in my opinion holds to strict and high standards. If the publication was not notable, than why do the remaining royal courts of Europe still have copies of the English AdeG on their shelves? I go back to my previous point, that a change in owner does not mean something ceases to be. As the dwc lr states "it’s legally a continuation under a new publisher, this article clearly distinguishes the change of ownership".

HofKal2 (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Of course the current owners will “piggyback” as you put it, but they own the Almanach de Gotha, it’s not like the “Almanach de Saxe Gotha” website which is a shameful rip off, it’s a genuine attempt at keeping the historic publication, that they own, going. When you acquire the rights to a publication you also buy the history and any prestige that comes with the name. You’ve highlighted old discussions and yes people on here and in some other quarters may have gripes with the editions or publishers, these opinions are likely to be over 20 years old and probably frozen in time. But I’ve always found the idea that the content of the post Perthes editions are so bad and unreliable that people have objected to them being cited on Wikipedia frankly absurd. Is the Almanach de Gotha less notable today than in 1944, yes perhaps. But that’s more to do with the world today, there’s less reigning houses than in 1944, aristocrats/nobles are probably less notable, so Burke’s Peerage for example is likewise not as notable as it once was. The fundamental issue for me is this: “is” the Almanach de Gotha “a directory of Europe's royalty and higher nobility...” or “was” it. Clearly it still is, just because ownership changes hands doesn’t mean things reset back to 1, merely a new chapter starts under a new owner and this article makes that clear. - dwc lr (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Almanach de Gotha


text:
Vinegar Hill

Vinegar Hill may refer to:

Elevations

 * Vinegar Hill (Enniscorthy), a hill above Enniscorthy, County Wexford, Ireland
 * Vinegar Hill (New York), a mountain in Greene County
 * Vinegar Hill (Oregon), in the Greenhorn Mountains
 * Vinegar Hill, a mountain in Beaverhead County, Montana

Settlements

 * Vinegar Hill, Brooklyn, a neighborhood in New York City
 * Vinegar Hill, New Zealand, a locality and campsite in Manawatu-Wanganui
 * Vinegar Hill, Ontario, Canada
 * Vinegar Hill, Queensland, Australia
 * Vinegar Hill Historic District, Bloomington, Indiana
 * Vinegar Hill (Charlottesville, Virginia), a neighborhood
 * Vinegar Hill Township, Jo Daviess County, Illinois
 * Vinegarhill, a former location in Glasgow, Scotland
 * Vinegar Hill, a locality near Magor, Monmouthshire, Wales

Other uses

 * Battle of Vinegar Hill, an engagement during the Irish Rebellion of 1798
 * Castle Hill convict rebellion of 1804 in Australia, sometimes referred to as the second Battle of Vinegar Hill
 * Vinegar Hill (novel), a 1994 novel by A. Manette Ansay
 * Vinegar Hill (film), a 2005 TV movie based on the novel, starring Mary-Louise Parker

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Vinegar Hill


text:
Talk:St James's Square

Untitled
Eisenhower had his headquarters in Grosvenor Square according to a plaque on a building on the north side of that Sq. Is there a source for the comment that his headquarters were here?
 * There's a blue plaque for him at number 31 according to one blue plaque website, but it doesn't say whether he lived or worked there and the English Heritage blue plaque Website doesn't even mention it. I'll have to go and have a look sometime. Bhoeble 21:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The BP building cost more than 117 GBP. 213.86.180.61 10:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:St James's Square


text:
Talk:A Bend in the River

Setting
I've corrected the ID of the country as Uganda, as I think Congo is a much more common interpretation. See, for instance: 1, 2, 3, or the Amazon.com reviews. --Dvyost 14:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * People see what they want in this book, and it's kind of a Rorschach in that way, reflecting what history a particular person knows. Enough people have consistently noted similarities to Idi Amin's Uganda, or to a country "very like Congo or Uganda," to merit mention. Naipaul certainly intended ambiguity, and we should respect that.

 * Are we allowed to say that it is among Naipaul's most famous and celebrated works? I think it's a masterpiece, but to say so surely violates NPOV. Sandover 06:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

While I am not going to say this is Congo - I can say that it is not Uganda. In the book Uganda is the place that Nazruddin first goes to. A quote (from The Big Man - 13.  "Things were bad in Uganda, Nazruddin wrote.  The army people...Uganda was Beautiful, fertile, easy, without poverty..."  This excerpt is just one of multiple examples in the book of Uganda being referred to as being away.

--

The setting is definitely intended to evoke Zaire. For one thing, there are shadows of Heart of Darkness, which takes place in Stanleyville/Kisangani, throughout. For another, the river in the book flows toward the Atlantic, which definitely means we're not in the Great Lakes watershed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.209.48 (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently working on a project in Kisangani, Dem Rep of Congo and a former US ambassador suggested I read this book to get some additional perspective on the place. There are many strong parallels to Kisangani and the area in the book. The descriptions of the buildings, the location of the fishing village near the falls, the vague reference to Patrice Lumumba (he spent a lot of time in Kisangani), the reference to the language along the river (Lingala), the hydroelectric plant next to the falls (which is in reality on the nearby Tshopo River), and the physical description of the people. If one assumes the book to be based on reality in Kisangani, it is remarkable to see the current city (2009) has not changed a great deal from the description of the book. Another item supporting the thought that the country in the book is not Uganda is that Uganda is not a former French colony and it is highly unlikely that French would be a common language as used in the book if it were set in Uganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukematthews (talk • contribs) 09:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Name of protagonist
The first sentence says the protagonist is unnamed, but the article also calls him Salim. I just finished the book yesterday, and certainly characters such as Metty called him Salim throughout. I'm not sure if this was his name or just a nickname, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.223.0 (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Bend in the River. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101203053119/http://themanbookerprize.com/prize/books/180 to http://www.themanbookerprize.com/prize/books/180

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:A Bend in the River


text:
User talk:Robby159

Hi, Robby. Welcome to Wikipedia. Your name sounds familiar...

Nice edit on George VI. If you need any help learning how to use this web site, let me know. Uncle Ed 14:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and you might want to take look at my comment to Irishpunktom. Uncle Ed 18:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Failure of John the Baptist
Nice edit. Can you expand the article a bit? --Uncle Ed 22:09, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I will expand the article. I stopped at John's gospel because his account differs somewhat from the other three but is all the more telling of the missed communiucation between The Baptist and Jesus. I will get back to this article at that point soon. Thank you.Robby159 15:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

hi
Remember me? --Uncle Ed 15:22, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Robby159


text:
Labyrinth (board game)

Labyrinth is a board game for two to four players, published by Ravensburger in 1986.

Gameplay
The game board forms a maze built of both fixed and moving pieces. The players rearrange the maze to their advantage by moving a row of pieces in turn. Each player has one token, which they move in the maze. The player's goal is to collect treasures in the labyrinth and then return to their own starting position. The treasures appear in the cards that are dealt to the players in the beginning of the game.

The player is allowed to see only the card that shows their current destination. The player has to reveal the card when they reach the destination, and take a new card from their pile. The other players notice when the pile is empty, and then usually try to prevent the leading player from returning to the starting position. Advanced players also try to guess other players' destinations in order to make their proceeding more difficult or try to trap them in dead ends.

History and related games
The game was designed by the German psychologist Max Kobbert and published by Ravensburger under the name "Das verrückte Labyrinth", which is a pun on the German words "verrücken" (displace) and "verrückt" (crazy), roughly translatable in English as "labyrinthal disorder". In English-speaking countries, the name was initially translated as "THE aMAZEing LABYRINTH", but the pun was dropped in subsequent versions.

Ravensburger has published a number of follow-on labyrinth games, starting with an advanced version of the game, Master Labyrinth, created by Kobbert in 1991. This version of the game won the 1991 Mensa Select award, the 1991 Deutscher Spiele Preis, and the Spiel des Jahres special award for "most beautiful game". It was followed by Junior Labyrinth (1995), a simplified version on a smaller board with fewer items to find; Secret Labyrinth (1998), a version on a circular board with simplified combat; the Labyrinth Card Game (2000); 3-D Labyrinth (2002), a version with a plastic 3D board; Lord of the Rings Labyrinth, a book/movie themed version; Labyrinth Treasure Hunt (2005), a version which features simultaneous play; and a dragon-themed version again called Master Labyrinth (2007).

In February 2008, videogame website DS-x2.com reported that dtp entertainment was planning a Nintendo DS version of the board game. Three months later, they included screen shots of the game, but ultimately it was never released.

In 2009-2010, the RIT CS department adopted the game for a freshman-level CS project in the Python programming language.

In July 2010, LEGO game Harry Potter Hogwarts (number 3862) was released that follows a similar game mechanic. Each player must collect one copy of each of four items and return to their start position. At the start of each player's turn the player rolls the dice to determine in what way they can change the layout of the board.

Reviews

 * Jeux & Stratégie #39
 * Games #86
 * Family Games: The 100 Best

title: Labyrinth (board game)


text:
User talk:Li-Wairen

Welcome!
Hi,, Welcome  to Wikipedia! I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. Before getting too in-depth, you may want to read about the five pillars of Wikipedia. If you need help on how to title new articles check out the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Help and the FAQ, plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page. ---

Additional tips
Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!
 * If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
 * You may want to add yourself to the new user log.
 * If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
 * If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
 * If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.

Happy Wiki-ing.
— Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ) '' 14:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Li-Wairen


text:
List of NFL champions (1920–1969)

The National Football League champions, prior to the merger between the National Football League (NFL) and American Football League (AFL) in 1970, were determined by two different systems. The National Football League was established on September 17, 1920, as the American Professional Football Association (APFA). The APFA changed its name in 1922 to the National Football League, which it has retained ever since. From 1921 to 1931, the APFA/NFL determined its champion by overall win–loss record, with no playoff games; ties were not counted in the winning percentage total. The APFA did not keep records of the 1920 season; they declared the Akron Pros, who finished the season with an 8–0–3 (8 wins, 0 losses, 3 ties) record, as the league's first champions by a vote of the owners. The Canton Bulldogs won two straight championships from 1922 to 1923, and the Green Bay Packers won three in a row from 1929 to 1931.

The 1932 NFL season resulted in a tie for first place between the Chicago Bears and Portsmouth Spartans, and could not be resolved by the typical win–loss system. To settle the tie, a playoff game was played; Chicago won the game and the championship. The following year, the NFL split into two divisions, and the winner of each division would play in the NFL Championship Game. In 1967, the NFL and the rival AFL agreed to merge, effective following the 1969 season; as part of this deal, the NFL champion from 1966 to 1969 would play the AFL champion in an AFL–NFL World Championship Game in each of the four seasons before the completed merger. The NFL Championship Game was ended after the 1969 season, succeeded by the NFC Championship Game. The champions of that game play the champions of the AFC Championship Game in the Super Bowl to determine the NFL champion.

The Green Bay Packers won the most NFL championships before the merger, winning eleven of the fifty championships. The Packers were also the only team to win three straight championships, an achievement they accomplished twice: from 1929–31 and from 1965–67. The Chicago Bears each won a total of eight titles, and the Cleveland Browns, Detroit Lions, and New York Giants each won four. The Bears recorded the largest victory in a championship game, defeating the Washington Redskins 73–0 in the 1940 NFL Championship Game; six other title games ended in a shutout as well. The Philadelphia Eagles recorded two consecutive shutouts in 1948 and 1949. New York City hosted the most championship games (eight), while the highest-attended title game was the 1955 NFL Championship Game, where 85,693 fans showed up in Los Angeles to watch the Browns beat the Rams 38–14.

APFA/NFL champions (1920–1932)
Champion determined by win–loss percentage. The number in parentheses indicates the number of championships the franchise had won to that point.

NFL champions (1933–1969)
Numbers in parentheses in the table indicate the number of times that team won the NFL championship as of the championship game.

title: List of NFL champions (1920–1969)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Mahon

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, attack page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Brendan Mahon
This page should be deleted because it is a personal atteck on Brendan Mahon.--Boberick 14:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Speedy Deletion: Not notable.--Boberick 14:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete Insulting. NN. KeithD 15:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete Someone removed the vfd somehow. I just discovered the article via a random article search. --One Salient Oversight 12:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Friday (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Brendan Mahon
personal attack. Not encyclopedic. Not acted on in July 2005 One Salient Oversight 12:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedied again (by me)--Doc (?) 12:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CQB K-9

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

CQB_K-9
Advertising... but please don't sic one of your dogs on me. Gunmetal 14:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete Advert. Also tries to claim copyright of the article. KeithD 15:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hint to editors: If you find yourself writing an article in the first person, there's a good chance you're writing an advertisement instead of an encyclopedia article.   — J I P | Talk 16:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Advert. Fallstorm 20:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Inquiry: Close_Quarter_Battle_K-9 is the exact same article. If this VfD reaches consensus, would this one be deleted as well or should I do a separate VfD nomination? Fallstorm 20:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No separate VFD needed for identical page. Manning 05:18, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete - advertising. Samw 00:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - blatant advertising. Also delete Close_Quarter_Battle_K-9. Manning 05:18, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CQB K-9


text:
User:Wolf-Dieter

Hi, I'm Wolf-Dieter from Germany (registered user of Wikipedia.de and wikinews.de). Checked in: 2005-07-19

User from Lower Saxonie in Germany (I'm living and working nearby Bremen)

title: User:Wolf-Dieter


text:
User talk:FRANCIS EMMANUEL

Please note that this is an encyclopedia, not a web board which you can use to contact swimming federations of other countries. That you have to do by email, as your contact requests here will and are deleted as being non-encyclopedic. Thank you. andy 14:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

If you continue to post these messages, you will be blocked from editing. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:FRANCIS EMMANUEL


text:
David C. H. Austin

David Charles Henshaw Austin (16 February 1926 at Albrighton – 18 December 2018 in the same village) was a British rose breeder and writer who lived in Shropshire, England. His emphasis was on breeding roses with the character and fragrance of old garden roses (such as gallicas, damasks and alba roses) but with the repeat-flowering ability and wide colour range of modern roses such as hybrid teas and floribundas.

Career
Austin's first commercially available rose, Rosa 'Constance Spry', was introduced in 1961. In 1967 and 1968 he introduced 'Chianti' and 'Shropshire Lass' respectively. Although these first roses bloomed only once in spring or early summer, they led, in 1969, to a series of remontant (repeat-flowering) varieties, including 'Wife of Bath' and 'Canterbury' (both in honour of the English author Geoffrey Chaucer). Austin's roses soon became the most successful group of new roses in the twentieth century.

Though Austin's roses are not officially recognised as a separate class of roses by, for instance, the Royal National Rose Society or the American Rose Society, they are nonetheless commonly referred to by rosarians, at nurseries, and in horticultural literature as 'English Roses' (the term he uses) or 'Austin Roses'.

Since its founding in 1969, he and his firm David Austin Roses in Albrighton, near Wolverhampton, introduced over 190 rose cultivars during his lifetime. Cultivars have been named in honour of his family, well-known rosarians, geographical landmarks in Britain, historical events, and British writers, particularly Shakespeare and Chaucer, and their works or characters. For instance, roses have honoured such diverse entities as the rosarian and artist Graham Thomas and King Henry VIII's flagship, the Mary Rose. David Austin Roses is still a family business, run by his son David and his grandson Richard. For decades Austin worked closely with senior rosarian Michael Marriott.

In the twenty-first century, Austin separated his roses into four groups as a guide to further developments. The four groups are:
 * the Old Rose Hybrids, roses with the appearance of the Old Roses but recurrent, healthy and with a wide range of colours
 * the Leander Group, often with Rosa wichurana in their breeding, with larger bushes and arching growth tending to make them pillar or low climbing roses
 * the English Musk Roses, based on 'Iceberg' and the Noisette roses, with pale green, slender and airy growth. The musk rose scent is missing from most, though other scents are present in many.
 * the English Alba Hybrids, with tall, rather blue-leaved bushes like the old Alba roses.

In 2003, David Austin was awarded the Victoria Medal of Honour by the Royal Horticultural Society for his services to horticulture and the Dean Hole Medal from the Royal National Rose Society. He received an Honorary MSc from the University of East London for his work on rose breeding. He received the lifetime achievement award from the Garden Centre Association in 2004 and was awarded an OBE in 2007.

In 2010, he was named a "Great Rosarian of the World".

He died in December 2018 aged 92, and was buried at the parish church of St Mary Magdalene, Albrighton, on 4 January 2019.

Chelsea Flower Show
In 2019, David Austin Roses won its 25th Gold Medal at the Chelsea Flower Show, the first since the death of David Austin in 2018 and the 37th time David Austin Roses had exhibited. The Secret Garden-themed gold medal display housed two new roses - Rosa Eustacia Vye and Rosa Gabriel Oak - named after characters in the work of Thomas Hardy.

Books

 * David Austin wrote the foreword for
 * His annual free catalogue David Austin Handbook of Roses, mainly devoted to Austin Roses but also listing many other varieties (often in the Austin roses pedigree) on sale, contains information on roses and their care in general, as well as many rose photographs.
 * David Austin wrote the foreword for
 * His annual free catalogue David Austin Handbook of Roses, mainly devoted to Austin Roses but also listing many other varieties (often in the Austin roses pedigree) on sale, contains information on roses and their care in general, as well as many rose photographs.
 * David Austin wrote the foreword for
 * His annual free catalogue David Austin Handbook of Roses, mainly devoted to Austin Roses but also listing many other varieties (often in the Austin roses pedigree) on sale, contains information on roses and their care in general, as well as many rose photographs.
 * David Austin wrote the foreword for
 * His annual free catalogue David Austin Handbook of Roses, mainly devoted to Austin Roses but also listing many other varieties (often in the Austin roses pedigree) on sale, contains information on roses and their care in general, as well as many rose photographs.

"English Rose"
"English Rose" is the designation for roses bred by David Austin.

List of Austin cultivars

 * 'Constance Spry' (1961)
 * 'Chianti' (1967)
 * 'Shropshire Lass' (1968)
 * 'Canterbury' (1969)
 * 'The Friar' (1969)
 * 'The Prioress' (1969)
 * 'The Yeoman' (1969)
 * 'The Knight' (1969)
 * 'Chaucer' (1970)
 * 'Charles Austin' (1973)
 * 'Lilian Austin (1973)
 * 'Redcoat' (1973)
 * 'Yellow Button' (1975)
 * 'The Squire' (1976)
 * 'The Countryman' (1979)
 * 'Charmian' (1982)
 * 'Leander' (1982)
 * 'Hero' (1982)
 * 'Wise Portia' (1982)
 * 'Cressida' (1983)
 * 'Dapple Dawn' (1983)
 * 'Graham Thomas' (1983)
 * 'Immortal Juno' (1983)
 * 'Lucetta' (1983)
 * 'Mary Rose' (1983)
 * 'Moonbeam' (1983)
 * 'Perdita' (1983)
 * 'Belle Story' (1984)
 * 'Troilus' (1983)
 * 'Tamora' (1983)
 * 'Bredon' (1984)
 * 'Dove' (1984)
 * 'Heritage' (1984)
 * 'Mary Webb' (1984)
 * 'Windrush' (1984)
 * 'Wenlock' (1984)
 * 'Abraham Darby' (1985)
 * 'Ellen' (1985)
 * 'Robbie Burns' (1985)
 * 'Sir Walter Raleigh' (1985)
 * 'Gertrude Jekyll' (1986)
 * 'Symphony' (1986)
 * 'Wild Flower' (1986)
 * 'The Countryman' (1987)
 * 'The Nun' (1987)
 * 'William Shakespeare' (1987)
 * 'Charles Rennie Mackintosh' (1988)
 * 'Fisherman's Friend' (1988)
 * 'Francine Austin' (1988)
 * 'L D Braithwaite' (1988)
 * 'Potter and Moore' (1988)
 * 'Queen Nefertiti' (1988)
 * 'Financial Times Centenary' (1989)
 * 'Sharifa Asma' (1989)
 * 'Snowdon' (1989)
 * 'Ambridge Rose' (1990)
 * 'Claire Rose' (1990)
 * 'Jayne Austin' (1990)
 * 'Lilac Rose' (1990)
 * 'Peach Blossom' (1990)
 * 'Bow Bells' (1991)
 * 'Cottage Rose' (1991)
 * 'Country Living' (1991)
 * 'Evelyn' (1991)
 * 'The Pilgrim' (1991)
 * 'Doctor Jackson' (1992)
 * 'Emily' (1992)
 * 'Sir Edward Elgar' (1992)
 * 'Glamis Castle' (1992)
 * 'Golden Celebration' (1992)
 * 'Prospero' (1982)
 * 'Redouté' (1992)
 * 'Charlotte' (1993)
 * 'Happy Child' (1993)
 * 'Tradescant' (1993)
 * 'The Alexandra Rose' (1993)
 * 'Eglantyne' (1994)
 * 'Radio Times' (1994)
 * 'Windflower' (1994)
 * 'Heavenly Rosalind' (1995)
 * 'Jude the Obscure' (1995)
 * 'Pat Austin' (1995)
 * 'Pegasus' (1995)
 * 'Scepter'd Isle' (1996)
 * 'A Shropshire Lad' (1996)
 * 'Barbara Austin' (1997)
 * 'Geoff Hamilton' (1998)
 * 'Teasing Georgia' (1998)
 * 'Anne Boleyn' (1999)
 * 'Buttercup 98' (2000)
 * 'England's Rose' (2000)
 * 'Crown Princess Margareta' (2000)
 * 'Grace' (2001)
 * 'The Mayflower' (2001)
 * 'William Shakespeare 2000' (2001)
 * 'Comtes de Champagne' (2001)
 * 'The Alnwick Rose' (2001)
 * 'Christopher Marlowe' (2002)
 * 'Jubilee Celebration' (2002)
 * 'Wildeve' (2003)
 * 'Scarborough Fair' (2003)
 * 'Charles Darwin' (2003)
 * 'Rosemoor' (2004)
 * 'Queen of Sweden' (2004)
 * 'Hyde Hall' (2004)
 * 'Harlow Carr' (2004)
 * 'Carding Mill' (2004)
 * 'Gentle Hermione' (2005)
 * 'Summer Song' (2005)
 * 'The Shepherdess' (2005)
 * 'Darcey Bussell' (2006)
 * 'Huntington Rose' (2006)
 * 'Lady of Megginch' (2006)
 * 'Lichfield Angel' (2006)
 * 'Strawberry Hill' (2006)
 * 'Tea Clipper' (2006)
 * 'Claire Austin' (2007)
 * 'Lady Emma Hamilton' (2007)
 * 'Munstead Wood' (2007)
 * 'Port Sunlight' (2007)
 * 'Young Lycidas' (2008)
 * 'Kew Gardens' (2009)
 * 'The Wegdwood Rose' (2009)
 * 'Lady of Shalott' (2009)
 * 'Princess Anne' (2010)
 * 'Susan William-Ellis' (2010)
 * 'The Lady's Blush' (2010)
 * 'William and Catherine' (2011)
 * 'Boscobel' (2012)
 * 'Tranquillity' (2012)
 * 'Royal Jubilee' (2012)
 * 'Thomas A Becket' (2013)
 * 'The Albrighton Rambler' (2013)
 * 'Olivia Rose Austin' (2014)
 * 'The Lady of the Lake' (2014)
 * 'The Poets Wife' (2014)
 * 'Sir Walter Scott' (2015)
 * 'The Ancient Mariner (2015)
 * 'Desdemona' (2015)
 * 'Bathsheba' (2016)
 * 'Imogen' (2016)
 * 'Roald Dahl' (2016)
 * 'Vanessa Bell' (2017)
 * 'Dame Judi Dench' (2017)
 * 'Emily Brontë' (2018)
 * 'The Mill on the Floss' (2018)
 * 'Tottering-by-gently' (2018)
 * 'Eustacia Vye' (2019)
 * 'Gabriel Oak' (2019)
 * 'Silas Marner' (2020)
 * 'The Country Parson' (2020)
 * 'Nye Bevan' (2021)
 * 'Bring Me Sunshine' (2022)
 * 'Elizabeth' (2022)
 * 'Dannahue' (2023)
 * 'Penelope Lively' (2023)
 * ‘Emma Bridgewater’ (2024)

title: David C. H. Austin