Talk:Charles I of Hungary/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I think the regnal numbers are leading to some confusion.

Charles II "le Boiteux" (1254-1309) 
|     & Maria of Hungary (1257-1323) (daughter of Stephen V)
|
Charles I Martell (1271-1295) & Klementia von Habsburg (-1295) 
|
Charles Robert of Hungary (1308-42) as Károly I Róbert (1288-1342)

So if Charles Robert is counted as Charles I of Hungary, as we seem to be wanting to do on List of Hungarian rulers, he is the great-grandson, not grandson, of Stephen V.

I was adding to the confusion by counting Charles I Martel as a King of Hungary, which I think he claimed to be from 1290-1295, but we seem not to be counting him as a Hungarian ruler. -- Someone else 04:27 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)

I searched the Google on the genealogy of the Angevins and came up with this:

(my translation from [1])

Charles Martel (1271-1295), son of King Charles II of Naples and Maria of Hungary (persumably daughter of Stephen V of Hungary). He was the titular king of Hungary (1290-1295) and married Clemence, daughter of King of Romans (persumably Rudolf I)

Charles I Robert (1291-1343), son of Charles Martel and Clemence, King of Hungary (1308-1342) and married Elisabeth of Poland (persumably daughter of Casimir III of Poland)

Louis I (1326-1382), son of Charles I Robert and Elisabeth of Poland, King of Hungary (1342-1382) and Poland (1370-1382). He married Margaret, daugheter of Emperor Henry VII.

So Charles Robert was the greatgrandson of Stephen V and we don't count Charles Martel as ruler of Hungary since he is only titular. In fact Andrew III was the real king at that time. This Charles Martel was spelled with one extra L (Charles Martell) in English text to avoid confusion with the Charles Martel, grandfather of Charlemagne. Here is another example that we cannot totally rely on 1911 EB for correct info. We need to research ourselves. Be reminded that the originial French version was copyrighted.-- User:kt2

What the hell?

User:Hobartimus, stop reverting me! Would you mind looking at the edit you keep reverting? A new user significantly expanded this article. Unfortunately, he did not delete the old "Life" section, which is now redundant because it only repeats the information contained in the "Struggle for Hungary" and other sections. I have moved the few original sentences (Charles' family) from "Life" to other appropriate sections and removed this redundant section altogether. The new user also linked some words whenever s/he used them. There is no need to have five red links to Ladislaus Kán in one paragraph. I have corrected it. Just read the article for God's sake! To demonstrate absurdity of the edit war you have launched here, my version links Maria of Hungary to the correct person Maria of Hungary (1257-1323) while your version links to the generic name Mary. Please stop it. Tankred (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Now now your edit makes a lot of controversial changes such as the complete removal of one of the pictures and others lumped in together with other changes. For example to correctly fix redundancy first it has to be decided which version is written better and of higher quality. Also none of these is "my" version it's merely the previous version, and be assured I did read your edit both times that was the reason why I reverted it. Your edit as a whole was detrimental to the quality of the article and few positive aspects of it can be easily put back like the link fix you mentioned above. Hobartimus (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I also noticed the removal of a picture and some Hungarian placenames. A major change in one edit without discussion first. Squash Racket (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a contemporary picture of the Battle of Posada there. I removed the anachronistic picture of the same event as redundant, but feel free to re-add it if you like. What exactly do you consider "detrimental to the quality of the article"? Please be specific. That sentence has no meaning without examples. Tankred (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction with Amade Aba

According to this article

On 10 October 1307, the magnates presented at the assembly in Rákos proclaimed Charles king, but the most powerful aristocrats (Matthew Csák, Amadé Aba and Ladislaus Kán) ignored him.

On the other hand, according to Amade Aba

He [Amade Aba] was present at the Assembly of Rákos (10 October 1307) where the participants confirmed Charles' claim for the throne.

Top.Squark (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What the hell? 2

Some guy called Links489 have modified the article, and posted this nonsense: "Charles died on 16 July 2007, he was killed by a famous samuri warrior know as Joel Kerr the Amazing. He was struck down by his mighty blade of wrath." I suggest we should warn him, that wikipedia is not some playground for dishonourable jokes. I have deleted the section.

Also I am Hungarian and Károly Róbert was our factual and rightful king. He was not only titular, he fought many battles and evetually defeated all of the oligarchs. His son Lajos the Great was our rightful king too. Don't try to teach us our own history! Also why do you translate every Hungarian name? His name was Károly Róbert, not Charles Robert damn it! We say Gorge Bush and not Bokor György, think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogzyx (talk • contribs) 23:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Cite sources. Charles Robert is the the most ommon name for this person in English sources. Besides. "you" call Elizabeth II II. Erzsébet, so why shouldn't "we" call him Charles Robert? Surtsicna (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

tampering

in the part Deterioration of the southern border a date has been altered to september 2010:

"The Árpád kings had succeeded in encircling their whole southern frontier with six military colonies or banates, comprising, roughly speaking, Little Wallachia (southern part of present-day Romania) and the northern parts of present-day Bulgaria, Serbia and Bosnia, September 2010 . Charles redistributed these territories and proselytized the residents of the region to consolidate his reign"

a1979s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.82.206 (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)