Talk:Graf

Surname

I need a consensus on this. Should links to persons with surnames such as Graf be included in an article about "graf", the title for German "count"? I personally think if there is enough material for the man there should be a separate article. I have never seen mixing personal names and ordinary nouns in any normal encyclopedic article. --Dieter Simon 23:48, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

March

The link to march does not make sense. I am not sure how to direct it to the disambiguation-page 'Mark' --Yak 17:52, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Better?--Ruhrjung 22:25, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Deichgraf

What about "Deichgraf", isn't that a title as well? Bgohla 22:17, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure about the German, but the litteral Dutch translation "Dijkgraaf" exists, be it for a non-aristocratic official in water management

I am sure graf is related to the anglosaxon gerefa, reeve, meaning officer not graph, this should be checked.

• was checked in German sources; double-checking on Anglophone sites confirms the precise origin of Gerefa is uncertain, but no relation is believed. Fastifex 13:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Marquess or marquis

Collins English Dictionary, Longman Dictionary of the English Language, and The Chambers Dictionary give "marquis" as an alternative to "marquess". Have put the alternative back into the article. Dieter Simon 00:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Graf is still part of the last name

"Today, Graf is considered part of the name, and no longer to be considered as a title. [1]" This statement is not correct. It is true, that in Germany nobility was abolished ín 1918/1919 and former aristocratic titles became part of the last name (Graf being one aristocratic title). However, the title and post of Graf (=count) still exists in the world and this statement should be clarified: That in Germany Aristocracy in a legal sence and their titles no longer exist IN GERMANY, and that IN GERMANY (Not so in Austria for example) in 1919 the former titles became part of the last names

Rhinegrave, Wildgrave, Raugrave, Altgrave

I replaced the content of these sections, since they contradicted both de.wikipedia.org and several other sources. If the old content is valid in any way, please add it back in (with references, ideally). Chl 21:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Bless you Chl, I spent a half-hour clarifying those terms just below the chart with the different -graf titles before I noticed you had entered that info already. Heaven knows where the stuff before your version came from...! Cheers, Trigaranus 19:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Landgrave

The article reads, that a landgrave "was a nobleman of comital rank". That is actually wrong as far as i'm informed. All Landgraves, along with all Markgraves and most Palsgraves (Count Palatine) were Princes of the Empire in the late middle ages and therefore of princerly rank above the comital ranks. The Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels (formerly known as the Gotha, the reference book about german nobility) definitely lists landgraves as princes, not as counts. The german wikipedia adopted this definition and hence rates Landgraves among other princes. Since I can't find any evidence, that would confirm the perspective of the english wikipedia, I would suggest to adjust the respective articles. Any objections? Brisbane0 (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

German noble titles

In 1919 the various German states abolished hereditary titles of nobility, depriving them of all legal and official affiliation with the noble class, which also legally lost all other privileges. But the German nobility itself was not abolished, as the article on it clearly states in the lead paragraph -- where that fact belongs. Therefore in Germany Graf is not a title legally or officially affiliated with the nobility, and so references to the privileges of nobility no longer appertain to Graf, which legally may only signify part of a surname. Edits to the contrary are erroneous and subject to correction. FactStraight (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edit/addition to the original sentence "...rather than as an indication of nobility." [1] is not supported by the source - see: "Verfassung des Deutschen Reiches" → Zweiter Hauptteil: Grundrechte und Grundpflichten der Deutschen → Erster Abschnitt: Die Einzelperson, Artikel 109." Your argument, i.e your conclusions are unsourced, and therefore in violation with Wikipedia:No original research.

This article, "Graf", is about a historical title of the German nobility, which since August 1919, is treated as part of the legal surname. Although, all legal privileges of the nobility have been officially abolished, the nobility, per se, was not → "In der folgenden Verfassung des Deutschen Reiches (Weimarer Verfassung WRV) wurden am 11. August 1919 die „öffentlich-rechtliche(n) Vorrechte oder Nachteile der Geburt oder des Standes“ aufgehoben. Der Adel wurde aber nicht, wie in Österreich, explizit abgeschafft." [2]. "Damit wurde der Adel als bevorrechtiger Stand abgeschafft, auch wenn sich in der verfassunggebenden Versammlung am 15. Juli 1919 eine Mehrheit nicht für die weitergehende Formulierung in Artikel 109 „Der Adel ist abgeschafft.“ entscheiden konnte und diese abgelehnt wurde.", see, "Sebastian-Johannes von Spoenla-Metternich: Namenserwerb, Namensführung und Namensänderung unter Berücksichtigung von Namensbestandteilen. Peter Lang, Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften, Frankfurt am Main 1998, ISBN 3-631-31779-4, S. 119 ff.". Altogether abolished were titles borne exclusively by German monarchs, such as emperor/empress, king/queen, grand duke/grand duchess, etc. However former titles shared and inherited by all members of the family were retained and incorporated into the surname. All other former titles and nobiliary particles are inherited as part of the surname, and remain protected as private names under the laws. Whereas the title often prefixed the given and surname, the legal usage moves the former title to the surname, however, the pre-1919 style sometimes continues in colloquial usage. Traditional titles exclusively used for unmarried noblewomen, such as Baronesse, Freiin and Freifräulein, were also transformed into parts of the legal surname, subject to change at marriage or upon request, meaning that a women will receive the female version of the former title → "Der bisherige Titel wurde so zum Bestandteil des bürgerlichen Familiennamens, wobei nach einer Entscheidung des Reichsgerichts vom 10. März 1926 (RGZ 113, 107 ff.) die geschlechtsspezifischen Varianten weiter verwendet werden konnten.", see, "Bernhard Seeger: Der Ehe- und Lebenspartnerschaftsname in der notariellen Praxis, in Mitteilungen des Bayerischen Notarvereins, ISSN 0941-4193, Juli/August 2002, München 2002, S. 230." and "Das Bürgerliche Gesetzbuch mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rechtsprechung des Reichsgerichts und des Bundesgerichtshofes; Kommentare (=Großkommentare der Praxis (German); "Civil Law Code with Special Attention to Jurisdiction of the Reichsgericht and the Bundesgerichtshof: Commentaries"), edited by members of the Bundesgerichthof, vol. 1: §§ 1–240, compiled by Kurt Herbert Johannsen, 12th, newly revised edition, Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1982, § 12 (p. 54). ISBN 3-11-008973-4."

Hereditary titles, abolished, but now being passed on as legal part of the surname, as well as the existence of the German nobility as a sociocultural class and phenomenon (that lost its legal privileges, but never was officially abolished) can not be denied. → see, for example, "Bis heute stellt der Adel in Deutschland dennoch mitunter eine relativ geschlossene Gesellschaftsschicht mit eigenen Lebensformen, Umgangsweisen und differenziertem Standesethos dar." or "Monika Wienfort: Der Adel in der Moderne. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2006, S. 11." or "Hans-Ulrich Wehler: Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte. Fünfter Band – Bundesrepublik und DDR 1949–1990. C. H. Beck, München 2008, S. 167.".

Ergo, your claim, that "Graf" (as a historical title, now being an official part of the surname) is not an "indicator" for nobility, is not correct. IIIraute (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we are really in basic agreement, but misunderstood each other's initial edits. Your first edits on this article and on German nobility indicate that you thought I was inserting a denial that nobility exists and/or denying that it hearkens back to former titles, here, whereas another contributor had recently inserted text saying that nobility had been abolished in Germany here, and I had removed that assertion here. I share your belief that surnames in Germany with elements like "Graf" and "von" hearken back to nobility, but I don't consider that they denote nobility in the eyes of the German state, which is what the article was implyng in my view. I reacted to that, thinking that you were trying to needlessly emphasize that noble privileges have been abolished, whereas since I consider (and, I argue, the 1919 German states considered) possession of hereditary titles (rather than status) to be one of the privileges that Germany's nobility was, de jure, losing. Our real challenge here is trying to not let these articles fall prey to those who believe it to be so or want it to be so that Germany's nobility doesn't exist, that title-like names should never be mentioned without stating that noble titles don't exist, and who want the emphasis in relevant articles to be on what doesn't exist (privileges, titles) rather than on what does exist (nobility, surnames resembling noble titles still held by nobles). So do we actually disagree on anything here? FactStraight (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not happy with the part that states "...rather than as an indication of nobility.". The privileges of the nobility have been abolished, not the nobility. A prefix to the surname, such as Prinz, Graf, Freiherr, etc. (usually in combination with a "von") does, de facto, indicate nobility.

"Mit dem Inkrafttreten der Weimarer Reichsverfassung am 14. August 1919 wurden alle Standesvorrechte des Adels abgeschafft (Artikel 109 Abs. 3 WRV[6]). Alle Bürger wurden vor dem Gesetz gleichgestellt, Männer und Frauen erhielten grundsätzlich dieselben staatsbürgerlichen Rechte und Pflichten, öffentlich-rechtliche Vorrechte oder Nachteile der Geburt oder des Standes wurden aufgehoben, Adelsbezeichnungen galten nur noch als Teil des Namens und durften nicht mehr verliehen werden, Titel durften nur noch verliehen werden, wenn sie ein Amt oder einen Beruf bezeichnen. Damit wurde der Adel als bevorrechtiger Stand abgeschafft, auch wenn sich in der verfassunggebenden Versammlung am 15. Juli 1919 eine Mehrheit nicht für die weitergehende Formulierung in Artikel 109 „Der Adel ist abgeschafft.“ entscheiden konnte und diese abgelehnt wurde." (Sebastian-Johannes von Spoenla-Metternich: Namenserwerb, Namensführung und Namensänderung unter Berücksichtigung von Namensbestandteilen. Peter Lang, Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften, Frankfurt am Main 1998, ISBN 3-631-31779-4, S. 119 ff.)

The titles and noble designations of the nobility have not been abolished by the German state (only the privileges connected to them), and may still be carried, although legally they are now merely parts of the family name and in theory convey no status. However, an example of society and state ignoring the 1919 law and following traditional practice is, that in all German telephone books, as well as on the electoral roll, a person named, for instance, Baron/Freiherr von Richthofen is listed under the letter "R" for Richthofen, rather than a "v" for "von" or a "B" for "Baron" or "F" for Freiherr, yet his birth certificate or passport will display the title as part of the surname. --IIIraute (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with making the distinction between de facto and de jure, and I think we can probably source it. Since we both agree that the German nobility was not abolished, our disagreement is narrowed down to whether "titles" were deemed "privileges" of the nobility -- I maintain they were, you maintain they weren't. Okay, we agree to disagree on that one. Do we agree that titles were legally abolished qua titles? Or do you maintain that they are still legally names and titles? FactStraight (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

IIIraute, I've re-read your documentation and I think I now see the error of my ways: my use of "abolished", as in "declared to no longer exist." I concur with you that is not the language used in the law. It seems to me that what occurred is that from 1919 German law ceased to recognize "Graf", "Freiherr", "Kronprinz", etc as titles of nobility or royalty -- but has never explicitly declared them not to be titles of nobility or royalty. However, henceforth the law recognized them only as elements in personal or family surnames. I think it would be useful to more fully explain that in the German nobility article. FactStraight (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is basically what I wanted to say. Of course noble titles were privileges of the nobility, yet only the privileges connected with the titles, (i.e. social rank/duties/legal privileges) were abolished, not the titles themselves (like in Austria). Although in theory they do not convey any status, they still do exist, but as part of the surname. Only titles borne exclusively by German monarchs, such as emperor/empress, king/queen, etc. were abolished. Former titles shared and inherited by all members of the family were retained and incorporated into the surname. See, for example the "Entscheidung des Reichsgerichts vom 10. März 1926 (RGZ 113, 107 ff." regarding male/female versions (gender difference) of the title, i.e regarding the treatment of inherited titles as part of the surname for married women/daughters. Otherwise females would inherit the male version of the title – that is now part of the surname. --IIIraute (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)