Discussion:
Kaiser / Imperator
(too old to reply)
David Amicus
2018-12-10 19:40:16 UTC
Permalink
Before WWI both the Emperor of Germany and the Emperor of Austria both held the title of Kaiser / Imperator.

So when "Kaiser" was said one could only know if it were Wilhelm or Franz Josef depending on the context?


I know the ruler of both Russia and Bulgaria both were called Tsar but when "Tsar" was mentioned I think most thought of Russia. No confusion.
Donald4564
2018-12-10 19:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Amicus
Before WWI both the Emperor of Germany and the Emperor of Austria both held the title of Kaiser / Imperator.
So when "Kaiser" was said one could only know if it were Wilhelm or Franz Josef depending on the context?
I know the ruler of both Russia and Bulgaria both were called Tsar but when "Tsar" was mentioned I think most thought of Russia. No confusion.
I always thought that the Austro-Hungarian Kaiser was referred to as "K.u.K." - was this also the case in Germany - as the German Kaiser was still also King of Prussia?

Regards
Donald Binks
Windemere
2018-12-10 20:14:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Amicus
Before WWI both the Emperor of Germany and the Emperor of Austria both held the title of Kaiser / Imperator.
So when "Kaiser" was said one could only know if it were Wilhelm or Franz Josef depending on the context?
I know the ruler of both Russia and Bulgaria both were called Tsar but when "Tsar" was mentioned I think most thought of Russia. No confusion.
In America, in books, newspapers, magazines, etc. the title Kaiser always referred to the German monarch. The Austrian monarch was referred to as Emperor. It would be interesting to know how these monarchs were referred to in Germany and Austria.
Windemere
2018-12-10 20:16:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Windemere
Post by David Amicus
Before WWI both the Emperor of Germany and the Emperor of Austria both held the title of Kaiser / Imperator.
So when "Kaiser" was said one could only know if it were Wilhelm or Franz Josef depending on the context?
I know the ruler of both Russia and Bulgaria both were called Tsar but when "Tsar" was mentioned I think most thought of Russia. No confusion.
In America, in books, newspapers, magazines, etc. the title Kaiser always referred to the German monarch. The Austrian monarch was referred to as Emperor. It would be interesting to know how these monarchs were referred to in Germany and Austria.
The title Czar always referred to the Russian ruler. In American newspapers, the ruler of Bulgaria usually was referred to as King.
n***@gmail.com
2018-12-11 03:28:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Amicus
Before WWI both the Emperor of Germany and the Emperor of Austria both held the title of Kaiser / Imperator.
So when "Kaiser" was said one could only know if it were Wilhelm or Franz Josef depending on the
context?
Keep in mind that in the 1850-1900 newspapers would have had a lot of Emperors to write about. Queen Victoria was Empress of India, Napoleon III was Emperor of France, you have the East Asians (Vietnam, China, Japan, and briefly Korea), and even the New World actually had a trio of Imperial dynasties during this time period (Brazil, Haiti, and Mexico). In German you have to add a Kaiser for the Czars of Russia.

So I suspect this was not a problem for most of them. After all, we do fine today and pretty much everyone is either a President or a Prime Minister.
Post by David Amicus
I know the ruler of both Russia and Bulgaria both were called Tsar but when "Tsar" was mentioned I think
most thought of Russia. No confusion.
IIRC the official Bulgarian legal position was that his Bulgarian-language title was Tzar, but his every-other-language-title was King.

Nick
Graham
2018-12-11 21:00:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by David Amicus
Before WWI both the Emperor of Germany and the Emperor of Austria both held the title of Kaiser / Imperator.
So when "Kaiser" was said one could only know if it were Wilhelm or Franz Josef depending on the
context?
Keep in mind that in the 1850-1900 newspapers would have had a lot of Emperors to write about. Queen Victoria was Empress of India, Napoleon III was Emperor of France, you have the East Asians (Vietnam, China, Japan, and briefly Korea), and even the New World actually had a trio of Imperial dynasties during this time period (Brazil, Haiti, and Mexico). In German you have to add a Kaiser for the Czars of Russia.
So I suspect this was not a problem for most of them. After all, we do fine today and pretty much everyone is either a President or a Prime Minister.
Post by David Amicus
I know the ruler of both Russia and Bulgaria both were called Tsar but when "Tsar" was mentioned I think
most thought of Russia. No confusion.
IIRC the official Bulgarian legal position was that his Bulgarian-language title was Tzar, but his every-other-language-title was King.
The UK legal position in 1921 was that he was an ex-Tsar - see In re Ferdinand, Ex-Tsar of Bulgaria [1921] 1 Ch 107.
n***@gmail.com
2018-12-11 21:26:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by David Amicus
Before WWI both the Emperor of Germany and the Emperor of Austria both held the title of Kaiser / Imperator.
So when "Kaiser" was said one could only know if it were Wilhelm or Franz Josef depending on the
context?
Keep in mind that in the 1850-1900 newspapers would have had a lot of Emperors to write about. Queen Victoria was Empress of India, Napoleon III was Emperor of France, you have the East Asians (Vietnam, China, Japan, and briefly Korea), and even the New World actually had a trio of Imperial dynasties during this time period (Brazil, Haiti, and Mexico). In German you have to add a Kaiser for the Czars of Russia.
So I suspect this was not a problem for most of them. After all, we do fine today and pretty much everyone is either a President or a Prime Minister.
Post by David Amicus
I know the ruler of both Russia and Bulgaria both were called Tsar but when "Tsar" was mentioned I think
most thought of Russia. No confusion.
IIRC the official Bulgarian legal position was that his Bulgarian-language title was Tzar, but his every-other-language-title was King.
The UK legal position in 1921 was that he was an ex-Tsar - see In re Ferdinand, Ex-Tsar of Bulgaria [1921] 1 Ch 107.
That's '21. There's no other Tzars running around. The re-War legal situation involved arguing about which King outranked the other Kings, whether the Hochadel were higher raking then a French Duke, etc. was a thing people did a lot. Post-war the League of Nations had established that countries were all sovereign, and could pick any title for their leader they wanted.

So in 1921 there's no reason for the UK to not butter up a former head of state.

During the 1908-1918 period if the Bulgarians insist that everyone call them Tzar, 1) that translates to several languages as an Emperor-level-title, and nobody takes a small nation seriously if it insists it's actually an Empire, 2) in languages where there's a specific title "Tzar" it conflicts with the Russians, etc. If they call themselves a Kingdom in not-Bulgarian none of those bad things happen, and then they can still call themselves a Tzardom in Bulgarian for historic reasons.

Nick
Chris Pitt Lewis
2018-12-12 11:22:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@gmail.com
During the 1908-1918 period if the Bulgarians insist that everyone call them Tzar, 1) that translates to several languages as an Emperor-level-title, and nobody takes a small nation seriously if it insists it's actually an Empire, 2) in languages where there's a specific title "Tzar" it conflicts with the Russians, etc. If they call themselves a Kingdom in not-Bulgarian none of those bad things happen, and then they can still call themselves a Tzardom in Bulgarian for historic reasons.
Nick
The Albanian title "mpret" was (and still is) translated in Western
European languages as "prince" for William of Wied in 1914, but "king"
for Zog in 1928-39.

Etymologically it is a descendant of Latin "imperator".
--
Chris Pitt Lewis
Louis Epstein
2018-12-14 06:00:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by David Amicus
Before WWI both the Emperor of Germany and the Emperor of Austria both held the title of Kaiser / Imperator.
So when "Kaiser" was said one could only know if it were Wilhelm or Franz Josef depending on the
context?
Keep in mind that in the 1850-1900 newspapers would have had a lot of Emperors to write about. Queen Victoria was Empress of India, Napoleon III was Emperor of France, you have the East Asians (Vietnam, China, Japan, and briefly Korea), and even the New World actually had a trio of Imperial dynasties during this time period (Brazil, Haiti, and Mexico). In German you have to add a Kaiser for the Czars of Russia.
So I suspect this was not a problem for most of them. After all, we do fine today and pretty much everyone is either a President or a Prime Minister.
Post by David Amicus
I know the ruler of both Russia and Bulgaria both were called Tsar but when "Tsar" was mentioned I think
most thought of Russia. No confusion.
IIRC the official Bulgarian legal position was that his Bulgarian-language title was Tzar, but his every-other-language-title was King.
The UK legal position in 1921 was that he was an ex-Tsar - see In re Ferdinand, Ex-Tsar of Bulgaria [1921] 1 Ch 107.
In 1921,the abdicated-in-1918 Ferdinand was ex-Tsar but wasn't his
son Boris III recognized as Tsar?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
David Amicus
2018-12-14 21:58:06 UTC
Permalink
I wonder if one reason Bulgaria joined the Central Powers rather than the Allies was over who should have the title Tsar - Bulgaria or Russia?

Regardless of which side Bulgaria chose she had no chance of gaining Constantinople.
Loading...