Talk:Albert VII, Archduke of Austria

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

Wedding date[edit]

Was the wedding date April 18, 1599 ? His wife's Wikipage, Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia of Spain, has May 6 instead. Perhaps the earlier date was the engagement ? -- PFHLai 21:38, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

Albert and Isabella were officially engaged on the 6 May 1598. The marriage was celebrated by procuration at Ferrara on 15 November 1598 in the presence of Pope Clement VIII. Albert was present, the Archduchess Margaret - who married Philip III the same day - stood in for Isabella. Both marriages were confirmed at Valencia on 18 april 1599. Richardot 13:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish connection?[edit]

Is this the same Archduke Albert who had very strong links with Aodh Mór Ó Néill and all those who fled Ireland in the Flight of the Earls in 1607? If it is, there is a huge amount about him in the Irish Colleges of Europe, and he was intimately involved in the Flight of the Earls itself. 193.1.172.163 (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he is. Tyrone and Tirconnel fled to the archducal court in Brussels and were given a reception that shocked the resident English ambassador for its warmth. Some of the children were made pages and would eventually get commands in the Army of Flanders. A number of Irish and for that matter English colleges were subsidized by the archducal regime out of the funds meant for the Spanish army in the Netherlands. The connection was older still, because at the onset of Tyrone's rebellion, the earls and Philip II agreed that the then Cardinal-Archduke Albert would become King of Ireland if the rebellion succeeded.Richardot (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albert VII, Archduke of Austria or Archduke Albert of Austria?[edit]

This article's title suggests that this man was the [Sovereign] Archduke of Austria, but he is not included in the list of rulers of Austria, and there is no succession box indicating that he was an Austrian monarch. Furthermore, the Archduchy of Austria was at teh time held by Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor. If he was not monarch of Austria, then this article should be at Archduke Albert of Austria. Surtsicna (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albert was effectively the reigning archduke, be it for only a few months. It should be remembered that Rudolf II died in 1612 and was succeeded as reigning archduke by his brother Matthias. When the latter died in 1619, the archduchies of Upper and Lower Austria and the position of head of the Austrian Habsburgs passed to Albert, by then the only surviving son of Maximilian II. Albert was formally invested with both charges. He did not retain them very long however, ceding them to Emperor Ferdinand II in exchange for a yearly pension. Hence his reign is probably the shortest of any in the archduchies. That being said, it made little difference on the ground. The archduchies were in open rebellion against Habsburg rule at the time. Richardot (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albert was archibishop of Toledo 1595-98. So he was priest too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.111.74 (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of the Archdukes[edit]

Unless there are some clear and unambiguous guidelines concerning titles, I suggest they should be given according to and in the order that they were used by the princes themselves. In the case of the Archdukes Albert and Isabella that means: Archduke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy (Philip II reserved the right to continue that title as King of Spain, but he did not claim an exclusive right), Duke of Lothier (a title that always preceded that of Brabant), Duke of Brabant, etc. It suffices to have a look at any ordinnance published during their reign to see that this is the case. Richardot (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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 Not Moved  Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Archduke Albert of Austria (1559-1621) → Archduke Albert of Austria (1559–1621) — year ranges use an endash per WP:DATE. —Rjwilmsi 12:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Always ignore MOScruft; and in this case, the real problem is that disambiguation by date is undesirable (who will be able to find him by birth-date? we might as well use arbitrary strings). Either Albert VII, Archduke of Austria (and we should make clear that the number means "in the Austrian succession" anyway) or disambiguate by profession: Archduke Albert of Austria (viceroy).Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not a useful move. RP459 (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Move to Albert, Duke of Luxembourg[edit]

This move is not a good idea. In his lifetime as well as in subsequent historiography, Archduke Albert was never known by the "principal" title of Duke of Luxembourg (except, perhaps, within the institutions of that duchy). A quick look at his official lists of titles will show that quite a few duchies were considered of greater importance than Luxembourg. Or, to put it by means of a comparison, moving Albert to Duke of Luxembourg would be like moving King Gustav I of Sweden to King Gustav I of the Goths (which was likewise a lower title he used). Perhaps more importantly, Archduke Albert is the name and title used by historians today. Surely there is no need to create confusion by moving him to Albert, Duke of Luxembourg. I therefore recommend he should be named according to Wikipedia standards for sovereigns of a lower title than king. In my understanding Archduke Albert, sovereign of the Habsburg Netherlands would be the most appropriate form. Richardot (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again this is a controversial and undiscussed move (talking about the one to Albert, Duke of Luxembourg). Luxembourg did not stand above any of the other states of the Habsburg Netherlands. Why do you choose Luxembourg when he could be Albert, Duke of Lothier; Albert, Duke of Brabant; Albert, Duke or Limburg; Albert, Duke of Guelders; Albert, Count of Flanders; Albert, Count of Artois; Albert, Count Palatine of Burgundy; Albert, Count of Hainaut or ; Albert, Margrave of Namur? The Duchy of Brabant was larger than Luxembourg! --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree with you more. I moved the article away from Albert, duke of Luxembourg. It beats me why he was moved back there. I can see the problem in as far as Albert and Isabella were sovereigns of a composite state. Like many other monarchs of their time their person was the linchpin of a collection of duchies, counties, etc. In their own reckoning, their highest title was Archdukes of Austria. Within the framework of the Netherlands it was Duke of Burgundy. The later was never in their possession however. The former only for a number of months. Assigning it to Luxembourg, Brabant, Lothier, etc. is never going to be very satisfactory. That is why I proposed calling them "sovereign of the Habsburg Netherlands". The title did not exist at the time, but it does sum up what they were. An alternative could be the short description they used themselves princ.Belgarum, which should be translated as princes of the Netherlanders (not of the Belgians, that's a nineteenth century term).Richardot (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Luxembourg was not more important than the other duchies but it wasn't less important either so it can't be compared to moving Gustav I of Sweden to Gustav I of the Goths (even if we ignore the fact that Gustav ruled no Kingdom of the Goths, while Albert did rule a Duchy of Luxembourg).
"Archduke Albert, sovereign of the Netherlands" is as messy as would be Philip II, ruler of the Spanish Empire. As bad as "Albert, Duke of Luxembourg" might be, "Archduke Albert, sovereign of the Habsburg Netherlands" is certainly worse.
If he was indeed a sovereign of Austria at any point in his lifetime as Albert VII, then the article should be titled Albert VII, Archduke of Austria. I think we all agree on this one. It would be similar to a previous title (Archduke Albert of Austria (1559–1621)) but more useful and easier to remember. Unfortunatly, I haven't been able to find a source that confirms that he was a sovereign of Austria (not merely calling him Albert VII). It does make sense, since he was heir presumptive to Matthias, but I'd like to see a source.
That being said, I've encountered several sources that refer to him as "Albert the Pious". I am talking about The new Encyclopaedia Britannica (1974), Academic Interests and Catholic Confessionalisation (2010), The Oxford encyclopedia of the Reformation (1996), New Century Cyclopedia of Names (1980), Battle Cries and Lullabies: Women in War from Prehistory to the Present (2000), A History of the Habsburg Empire: 1273-1700 (1994), Rembrandt, master of the portrait (1992), Dutch and Flemish painting (1986), etc, etc. Would Albert the Pious please everyone? Surtsicna (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After the death of Emperor Matthias, the Catholic membership of the states of Lower Austria formally recognized Albert as the new archduke on 5 June 1619. The Protestant members of Lower Austria and the states of Upper Austria declared that they were willing to do the same on condition that he confirmed their religious liberties. Albert abdicated in favor of Emperor Ferdinand II with letters patent dated 9 October 1619. His reign in Austria was no doubt the shortest and it was contested, but in the nomenclature of his Habsburg successors, it was nevertheless legitimate. So yes, I for one could live with Albert VII, Archduke of Austria.
As to a source, see: Hans Sturmberger, Georg Erasmus Tschernembl: Religion, Libertät und Widerstand: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Gegenreformation und des Landes ob der Enns, Forschungen zur Geschichte Oberösterreichs, 3 (Graz and Köln: H. Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1953).
Albert the Pious on the other hand is a posthumous title. It is never mentioned in contemporary sources.
Although I hope we can now settle for Albert VII, Archduke of Austria, once and for all, I feel obliged to add that the order of titles was never random. When it came to ducal titles Albert was first and foremost (though rather theoretically) Duke of Burgundy, then Duke of Lothier (quite theoretical too), Duke of Brabant, Duke of Limburg and only in fifth place Duke of Luxemburg. It really makes a big difference for an early modern prince.Richardot (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's move it to Albert VII, Archduke of Austria. Why don't you write about his short reign in the article? It's quite interesting and seems significant. I'll add a succession box. As for Albert the Pious, it is posthumous but isn't that common when it comes to nicknames? I doubt Henry IV of Castile was called "Henry the Impotent" during his own reign. Surtsicna (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support the move to Albert VII, Archduke of Austria. Now what about his wife?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia of Spain is a ridiculously long title for an article about the only Isabella Clara Eugenia that ever lived. Besides, it undermines her status as sovereign by relegating her to the status of a mere daughter of a sovereign. Why not name the article simply Isabella Clara Eugenia if Isabella Clara Eugenia, Duchess of X is inappropriate? Surtsicna (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

== Requested move II ==

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: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Albert, Duke of Luxembourg → Albert VII, Archduke of Austria – Archduke Albert was a sovereign ruler of a lower title than king. His sovereignty in the Habsburg Netherlands was made up by a patchwork of titles and (as the discussion above shows) it is hard to pick one of them. He did however become the ruler of the archduchies of Lower and Upper Austria at the death of his brother Emperor Matthias (20 March 1619) until his abdication in favor of Emperor Ferdinand II (9 October 1619). Richardot (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Children[edit]

Did he have three children: Philip, Albert, Anna Mauritia, who died young? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albert_VII,_Archduke_of_Austria&oldid=1204664072"