Talk:Maria Theresa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Good articleMaria Theresa has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
October 17, 2009Good article nomineeListed
July 6, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Imperial Highness[edit]

Maria Theresa did not enjoy this style as an Archduchess, and therefore I am removing it.(Jack1755 (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC))

Correct. Can anyone provide a source for the claim that any of those styles were actually used? Surtsicna (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
There wouldn't be any. The archdukes and archduchess of Austria who were issue of the archduke-kings were Royal Highnesses. They did not become Imperial Highnesses until the proclamation of the Emperordom of Austia. There was no "Holy Roman Imperial Family" to be Imperial Highnesses. The (elected) heir even was usually a king and styled Majesty. Seven Letters 18:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Intellectually inferior to her sons[edit]

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

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

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

Pre-FAC comments from Maria[edit]

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

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

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

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

Page title[edit]

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

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

Here are the biographies:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

late comment about the name[edit]

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

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

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

Land reform[edit]

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

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

Another comment about the "page name"[edit]

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

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

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

Bias regarding Jews and Protestants[edit]

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

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


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

Salic Law?[edit]

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

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

Names in lead[edit]

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

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

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

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

Maria Theresa
Kaiserin Maria Theresia (HRR).jpg
The Empress in 1759, by Martin van Meytens

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

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

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

Lead image[edit]

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

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


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

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

Maria Theresa's imperial status and the name of the treaty[edit]

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

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maria Theresa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Ancestry chart[edit]

  1. I have no idea where Zortwort got the idea that I removed the template for not liking it.
  2. Few graphics of this sort having a citation does not mean that graphics such as this do not need citations.
  3. If this ahnentafel were helpful, it would have been present in biographies of Maria Theresa and thus easy to source. Anna Dorothea of Hohenlohe-Neuenstein is entirely irrelevant to Maria Theresa's life, as is basically every ancestor of hers other than parents and grandparents.
  4. When Howcheng tagged the section as unsourced, I dealt with it the way that seemed best to me. I would appreciate if Zortwort dealt with it in a way he thinks best. Reverting an attempt to fix the issue and providing no alternative is not vey helpful. Surtsicna (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: I ref'd it. Whether Maria's ancestor's are irrelevant to her life or not is itself irrelevant-- these types of charts are not for understanding her life but for easily seeing who she's descended from. Removing a section like that because it's unsourced is not the best way to deal with it-- sourcing it is. Better to leave it with the template than to remove it unless it can't easily be sourced, isn't true, etc. Zortwort (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a biography of Maria Theresa, and Wikipedia is not a genealogy directory. Any chart in a biography should be there for understading the subject's life. I can hardly believe that this needs to be said. And who cares about the name of her mother's father's mother's mother? No biographer of hers, certainly! And Wiki biographies should rest on secondary sources. But anyway, I did suggest that you at least source it. Surtsicna (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: This is an article about Maria Theresa, the formatting of most articles involves the biography merely comprising a section of it. The ancestry section is useful for people interested in quickly redirecting to articles on her ancestors. Further, the sources I provided *are* secondary sources, something I should think would be clear. At any rate, the problem's solved now. Zortwort (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@Zortwort: While the ancestry section might be interesting to genalogists, we would need a biography of Maria Theresa to show that an ahnentafel going back 5 generations is important to this article - much like this addition might be important to numismatists but not really in general. In any case, this is why ancestry charts should be sourced just like any other content on Wikipedia. Saying that it is frequently unsourced is a very odd justification. Surtsicna (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Note style[edit]

Would there be any opposition to converting to EFN-style notes which simply display as a letter, e.g. "a", replacing the current numbered style, e.g. "note 1"? UpdateNerd (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd I think both are more or less the same... Mimihitam (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)