Talk:Friedrich Karl von Hessen
|
|
I wonder about the content on this page. It seems to me that much, maybe the most, of it is irrelevant to the person and is better covered in an article on Germany's non-military strategies to increase her influence in Central Europe during WWI. Parts of it would also surely fit in nicely in the articles on other countries (Baltic countries and Finland) history.
/Tuomas
See discussion at: Talk:Väinö I of Finland -- Jniemenmaa 11:24, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Jniemenmaa's revert was reasonable.
According to my understanding, Prinz Friedrich Karl was not so much a force behind the development, which is the impression one gets from the longer, now reverted, version of the article.
I might be wrong, and might have read only the wrong books, but I see him rather as a representative for his class, prepared to "serve" as a ruler if history directed him to such a position – to which he, after all, had been brought up.
--Ruhrjung 12:01, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Friedrich Karl was not the first choice to be King of Finland, but Kaiser Wilhelm´s son Oscar. However Wilhelm was stricly agaist that kind of arrangement. So the Finnish monarhcists had to have other candidates. Duke of Mecklenburgh Adolf Friedrich, Prussian prince Friedrich Wilhelm and Prince of Hesse Friedrich Karl were chosen. Only Friedrich Karl was available after long serious consideration of his own. On the Oct. 9. 1918 he was elected to be king. No voting took place in election process and Maalaisliitto (Rural union) and the only Social Democrat MP took no part in election. However after Germany´s defeat in the great war, Friedrich Karl decided Dec. 4 1918 that he will not rise to the throne.
- You are perfectly right, although you here omit the forces outside of Finland. In December, 1918, there were really no other choises than to renounce the throne. It was hardly any sign of of the Prince's independent will to shape history, rather his ability to act in the best interest of Finland.--Ruhrjung 12:41, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Merging
There should not be separate articles on Friedrich Karl as Friedrich Karl and on him as Vaino I of Finland. They are the same person. There should be a single encyclopedia article. john k 17:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, if the other article really was about the person an not about Finland's brief monarchistical adventure.
- OK, should then the Väinö-article be renamed to Finland's monarchistical adventure of 1918? Maybe, though I'm not so sure. "Väinö" may be apocryphical, but I believe that title to be in accordance with the Wikipedia principle of using that name that is best known (in English).
- /Tuomas 18:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)